presentation set1

Click here to load reader

Post on 25-May-2015




2 download

Embed Size (px)


  • 1. Comparative History

During the decades that followed, many western Indians in both countries became administered people. That is, government officials told them what they could do, as well as when, where, and how to do it. By the end of the era their loss of autonomy reached into most aspects of their lives. At the same time, substantial differences marked the tribal experiences on each side of the international border. In the United States the army campaigned repeatedly against tribes and bands declared hostile by government policy. Farther north, on the other hand, the North West Mounted Police usually managed to keep peace. Because of the continuing violence and bloodshed in the American West, churchmen, reformers, and other so-called friends of the Indian launched frequent movements to force the U.S. government to end the fighting, reform the operations of the Indian Office, and give them more say in the way tribal people were being treated.
Some tribal people living in the United States resorted to warfare to protect their lands and customs, while in Canada few violent confrontations occurred. Leaders in both countries responded to the continuing demands for more land cessions with delay, rejection, or compromise, but in almost every case they lost territory to the advancing whites. While a few groups such as a part of the Hunkpapa Sioux followed Sitting Bull into Canada briefly, and some Kickapoos fled from Texas into northern Mexico, this was not a popular option for most Indians. As they had done before, shamans and prophets offered guidance. They upheld past beliefs, offered new insights that combined elements of Christianity and tribal practices, or gradually accepted the missionaries' teachings. On reservations or reserves leaders supported education for the children to help the next generation better deal with the ever-increasing numbers of whites. In all of these choices, however, Indians had ever less chance to take the initiative as the century drew to a close. . . .
By 1864 raiding bands of Sioux, Pawnees, Cheyennes, and Arapahos had cleared many pioneers from the central plains, leading John Evans, the governor of Colorado, to claim that the raiders had virtually isolated Denver and the mining camps in the central Rocky Mountains. That brought retaliation from the Colorado militia, and in November 1864 the Sand Creek Massacre occurred. . . . The militiamen tore into the Indian village, which flew a large American flag to signal peaceful intentions. When the shouting stopped, the pioneers had killed and mutilated two hundred men, women, and children. This carnage prompted investigations by the army and Congress. Meanwhile, the survivors fled, bringing their story of white treachery to other villagers; thus the war continued, shifting northward where the miners pouring into the northern Rockies had to cross Sioux and Cheyenne territory. Even though the Civil War had ended by 1865, Indians and whites fought a bitter contest for much of the next generation in the West. Along the Bozeman Trail leading north from the Platte River Road to the mining camps of Montana, the Sioux bottled up the troops, at times virtually besieging the isolated army outposts. . . .
American violence and warfare with the tribal people resulted from a combination of factors, few of which could have been avoided. The native societies in the West were well led and had strong attachments to their homelands, and some had strong warrior traditions. Moreover, they lived atop land seen as desirable for agriculture or athwart roads and trails over which thousands of pioneers trudged. Some of the tribal lands encompassed valuable mineral bodies or timber stands, and westerners had little patience for the idea that those valuable resources should be monopolized by the Indians. Few accepted the Indians' right to continue living a traditional lifestyle. Although only a small proportion openly called for destroying the tribes, many western Americans wanted the government to push the tribal people out of their way. On that issue they shared values with the Canadians. In both nations the people living nearest the tribes wanted them moved.
During the late 1860s events that shaped the long-term relations between the races took place in London and the provincial capitals in Canada. Moving to grant more local autonomy to parts of their far-flung empire, the British established the Dominion of Canada in 1867 under the provisions of the British North America Act. The new government had authority over Ontario and Quebec as well as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. At Confederation the new nation included only four provinces, but in 1869 Rupert's Land, the vast holdings of the Hudson's Bay Company, became part of Canada. The next year, 1870, the government established the new western province of Manitoba, while in 1871 British Columbia joined the country, and two years later Prince Edward Island did the same.
In 1869, immediately after getting title to the region, the government sent out survey crews to bring landholdings in the West into line with those in Ontario.... Fearing that Canadian officials might ignore their customary landholding patterns, angry at having virtually no say in their own government, and deeply suspicious of Canadian motives for moving in on them, the mixed-race peoples of the West organized under the leadership of Louis Riel Jr., a Montreal-educated Metis, to proclaim their own local government, establish courts, and block Canadian penetration of the region until the disputes could be settled. Riel proclaimed a provisional government in December 1869, and the next year Manitoba joined the confederation as a province, if only a small one. While the Indians and the Canadian government remained at peace during the nation's first decade in existence, by the mid-1880s this broke down. Without an army. Canada turned to a uniquely British institution for its peacekeeping force. Based on the model of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in 1873 the government created the North West Mounted Police .
The annual cycle of migration to fish, hunt, or gather took children away for months at a time. Even when seasonal migrations ended, village or band matters directly affected attendance. By the early 1880s some tribal groups ceased cooperating. Some bands refused to pay for schools. Others interpreted their treaties' promises to provide teachers to mean that the government should also provide any buildings or equipment that the teachers might need. One group even suggested that the teachers build their own schools. It is unclear whether this argument reflected Indian understanding of the situation, masked their basic suspicion of the whites and their institutions, or demonstrated efforts to slow acculturation. When they realized that the bureaucrats wanted to replace tribal cultures, the Indians resisted openly and covertly. They saw the boarding schools as a means of disrupting their family and village life. If the children remained at those institutions they could not participate in annual hunting or migratory activities.
Regardless of the government efforts many tribal groups continued to ignore the schools. In the mid-1890s one official reported that "only thirteen schools, indifferently-patronized, are in operation among the thirty bands occupying this vast district. Two thirds of the Indians are uncompromising heathens, who have for generations successfully resisted all the combined efforts of missionaries to Christianize them." Specific-data support this charge, as an 1892 report showed. That year, of the 15,385 school-aged Indian children, only 6.350 even appeared on any school roster and of those only about half, or 3,630. children showed up in the average daily attendance figures. As in Canada, American authorities saw the schools as a tool that would help erase Indian cultural identity.
Canadian officials had been striving toward the same objective since the 1860s through their unsuccessful enfranchisement program. For years it had remained volun-tary; to gain status as an enfranchised person, the individual reserve dweller had to pass muster at a hearing conducted by public officials. In the United States the reformers and the government looked to allotment to do what removal, military defeat, schools, churches, and model farms had failed to accomplish the acculturation and assimilation of tribal people. The process began in 1887, when Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts guided the General Allotment Act. or Dawes Severalty Act, through Congress. The new law gave the president authority to allot reservations, giving individual Indians title to the land after twenty-five years and immediate citizenship when they accepted an allotment. During the next generation many Indians became citizens. Once all eligible tribal members got their allotments, the surplus land, or what remained after allotment, could be placed on the market. Once the program began, tribal landholdings shrank drastically.
Livestock raising on the Great Plains proved a more innovative approach to the need for incorporating Indians into the economy. By 1880 several bands of the Blackfoot Confederacy had begun cattle raising in southern Alberta. The inspector for the western area reported in 1882 that the Piegans' herd seemed to be growing. In June that year the nearby Stoney tribe held a successful cattle roundup. The Indians asked for livestock repeatedly, and by 1888 many bands had herds of cattle, sheep, and swine. Triumphant officials pointed to the care Indians lavished on their livestock, and one reported that at least one tribe had helped to kill their own dogs because the animals attacked their sheep. In fact, between 1885 and 1895 the tribes in the Northwest Territories increased their cattle herds from 1,230 cattle to 15,378 animals. Clearly these Indians had more success in influencing policy and the direction of their own economic development than had their counterparts south of the border at the same time. . . .
No one wishes to be called an imperialist, no nation
Wishesto admit to having undergone an imperialistpast,and the newand emerging nationslike to charge much of their current instability to the imperial tradition. Many Americans have assumed that there was no period of American imperialism.Others admit to a briefimperialist past but prefer to clothe that past in other words. Wewere an expansionist nation, some historians argue, but not an imperialist one, a distinction more Jesuitical than useful.
But most imperialisms have beenrooted in a sense of mission, and the American sense differsfrom that of other nationschiefly in that the United States emphasized differentcharacteristics.The British senseof mission sprang from a conviction of cultural superiority, the Japanese from a racialmessage thinly veiled in paternal rhetoric, the German from an impulse toward a preordained dialectic, and the Communist sense of mission from what was conceived tobe a sure knowledge of the world's ultimate needs and ends. And to say that we all aresinners does not remove the necessity to see whether and how our sins have differed.Imperialism was not always in ill-repute, of course. In Britain in the 188()'s and1890's, Chamberlain and Roseberywere proud to call themselves imperialists. Theywere helping unfortunate peoples around the world to come into the light; they werelifting Britain, and not at the expense of nonwhites butat the expense of other, highlycompetitive European powers.
Imperialism was a practice; colonialism was astate of mind. Whether a powerful na
tion extended its control, its influence, or merely its advice over another people, those
so controlled or so advised not unnaturally resented the controller. Indeed, we have all
been colonies mentally at one time or another; no one likes, as they say, to be over a
barrel. Much indignity lies in any subservient position, and yet there will always be the
powerful and the powerless, and the people with the most power may not
escapebeingthe nation that is powerless, as Britain learned at Suez and
as theUnitedStates is learning today. There is obvious indignity in never being
the moverbutalways the moved,in waiting to see how a foreign capital or a
foreign embassy will decide one's fate.
The very language of imperialism was all-pervasive. Neither the Maori in New
Zealand northe Navajo in America had any name for themselves until
Europeanscoinedthe words. Geographical terms of location Near East,
Middle East, Far Eastwererelative to a European map. Latin America became
that portion of the New World whereSpanish and Portuguese were spoken,
because Americans decided this was so, obliviousof the fact that French
Canadians considered themselves Latins too. Indonesia's Sukarnoacquired a
first name because American journalists refused to believe that a man could
have but one. The names of the saints of European churches, likethe names
of Europeankings, run across the face of Asia, of Africa, and of the Pacific worlds
as dictated by thewhims of semiliterate men. The very geography of race itself
is European, for it wasLeclerc de Buffbn who first classified the orders of life so that
a later generation wouldhave tools for distinguishing between peoples as well
as plants.
The United States was part of this climate of opinion. American responses to some
of the assumptions of European imperialists were bound to be negative, for the United
States had grown, after all, out of a former colonial empire. The assumptions that
Americans made about imperial responsibility were conditioned by an awareness of distance from the scenes of European conflicts, by a knowledge that the American people
were an amalgam of many of the peoples of the world, some themselves representative
of the victims of imperial struggles, and from an emotional predisposition to apply the
basic tenets of republicanism to the imperial situation.
The idea of mission was reinforced by the Federal victory in the Civil War. In 1867
the United States purchased Alaska from Russia. Following a period of internal concern
for reconstructing Southern state governments, for reshaping the machinery of business, and for general domestic economic and social growth, Americans turned outward.
The second major period of American expansion, and the first to propel America over
seas, coincided with the world-wide wave of imperial annexations associated with the
British, French, and German empires and with the awakening of Japan. If the earlier
period were merely expansionist, as some contend, the growth between 1898 and 1920
was genuinely imperialist.
Most important, perhaps, is the by no means complimentary fact that the American
imperialism was more culturally insidious than that of Britain or Germany, although
perhaps not more so than that of France. To qualify for self-government among American
states, colonial dependencies had to be utterly transformed, and the Americans often
showed very little respect for Spanish culture in Puerto Rico, for Samoan life in Tutuila,
or for the structure of the old Hawaiian kingdoms. The French, with their mission civilisatria;
were equally willing to insist that, to be civilized, the colonized must learn the
language and customs of the conqueror. The British, ever more pragmatic, were con
tent to administer through an elite, creating classes of Anglo-Indians and other cultural
hyphenates bur leaving the fundamental nature ol the indigenous culture unchanged.
Since they never anticipated the day when India would become part of the United
Kingdom, and not until the 1920s did responsible officials give serious thought even
to the loose linkage now involved in Commonwealth ties, wholesale Anglicizing was
unnecessary. Precisely because the Americans did anticipate rapid progress toward
assimilation did they insist upon such brutally fast Americanization.
The contrasts with other Southeast Asian cases are impressive. Dutch reforms in
Indonesian educational and administrative policy increasingly placed aristocratic and
upwardly mobile students together inside colonial schools and offices and outside them
as unemployed, resentful graduates. When French schools in Vietnam began to produce
their own Western-trained functionaries, local scholarly elites detached themselves from
the larger educational system and provided important political and moral leadership to
a nationalist movement of students and a growing class of "new intelligentsia." The destruction of the old Burmese court (the Hutladaw) in 1888 and of local authorities
(Myothugyis) gave young Burmese graduates of British colonial schools a nationalist
mistrust of British intentions (bolstered by the importation of Indian and Tamil bureaucrats) and a relatively free hand to assume leadership of" the nationalist campaign. A
third,ideological peculiarity underpins the distinctive arrangement of U.S. colonial institutions. America's colonial epoch began after its own Civil Warhelped dispatch
the aristocratic ideology on which the U.S. Souths plantation economy had rested. In
its place, an orientation favoring individual rights and equality before the law linked to
Northern industrialization and Western expansion captured Americans' imagination.
19. The Philippines at the Dawnof U.S. Colonial Rule
Although distinctive aspects of the U.S. administration set the Philippine regime apart,
the entire arrangement also sat atop a society thatin many ways was already distinct from
the rest of Southeast Asia. In one respect, this distinctiveness consists in the recent
Philippine revolutionary climax and the original connection that existed, however
briefly, betweenarriving U.S. forces and elite Philippine nationalists. By 1898, the struggle against Spain had passed from its political to its military phase, and many of the
nation's brightest leaders had given their lives in pushing the independence struggle to
that point. Moreover, the 1898 revolution took place about twenty years before anticolonialism
had developed a substantial global political and organizational infrastructure, and this
bit of timing had significant consequences. The decrepitude of the Spanish colonial
regime, at war with the United States and already bereft of prime acquisitions in Latin
America, accounted in substantial measure for Filipinos' early successesat the nineteenth
century's close. But the Philippines' comparatively early revolutionary upsurge also segregated the Philippine struggle from some of the more important events in that global
history, such as the impact (especially in Asia) of the Japanese victory over Russia in
1905 and of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
20. Philippine Collective ActionUnder U.S. Rule
It is possible to divide Philippine protest and collective action under U.S. colonialism
roughly into three periods. The first period . . . divides into two American wars: one
against Muslims (Moros) in Mindanao, and the other against Christians in Luzon and
the Visayas. Both began in 1899. The Mora wars lasted until 1912, and the Christian
wars lasted until 1907. Filipinos at first engaged Americans in artillery battles along the
railway corridor from Manila to Pangasinan, but heavy casualties soon forced them to
switch to guerrilla tactics. After the switch, the Americans shifted their attention
to severing the connection between the guerrilla fighters and their mass base.
Even before this killing ended, some Filipinos began new forms of struggle and collective action, designed to secure positions within and under the U.S.
Regimeratherthan to displace that rule. As the Philippine-American War moved out of Manila andinto the countryside, rapid capitalist expansion produced new activity among workersin Manila and would shortly do so in important secondary cities such as Iloilo andCebu.
the dramatic changes in Americancultural styles and values in the waryears and after have sometimes confused historiansof motion pictures, who, like other historians of the arts, sometimes oversimplify aboutthe larger culture in which their medium was shaped. . . . American society and culture were changing faster and more fundamentally than the movies themselves. . . . Members of the urban leisure and professional classes. . . led the way in discardingthe socialcode symbolizedby thatVictoriandrawing-room scene. The traditional middle-class moral orderhad, even before the war,been losing ground in its effort to maintain small-town values in an increasingly urban,industrial and ethnically heterogeneous society. Its drive to recover dominance duringthe war through excessive patriotism, moralism and repression, though leading to impressive victories with the enactment of Prohibition and immigration restriction, alsodrove segments of the culturally influential urban elites away from adherence to traditionalbeliefs and behavior. The targets of the campaign for conformity the recently arrived immigrants andtheir children, the "hyphenated Americans" related in a more confused and ambiguous way to the dominant social order.
To the spokesmen and spokeswomen of the dominant order, the movies stood in direct opposition to respectable American values and institutions: power over moviesrested largely in the hands of foreign-born producers; even native-born movie workerscame from marginal and disreputable subsocieties of vaudeville and stock companytheater; and the movies were full of incitements to crime and salacious behavior.Movies thus came to play a central role in the cultural conflicts that followed WorldWar I. On both sides of the struggle, movies came to be seen as offeringvalues distinctlydifferent from those of the older middle-class culture, and providing greater opportunities for ethnic minorities than other economic sectors. Immigrants and their childrenwere attracted to movie culture not merely because movies were cheap, ubiquitous andappealing as fantasy or entertainment; their preference became a conscious, one mightalmost say a political, choice. In American society, movies became a major factor in the reorientation of traditional values Wilter Benjamin's word "liquidation" in the American context would be too strong.
The tactics of moviemakers in transforming social codes were nowhere moresuccessfulthan in the films of Cecil B. DeMille.He became notorious earlyin 1918when heunveiled the first in a series of spicy morality tales of extramarital temptation. Old Wivesfor New. Hisaudacity has since becomea centerpiece of the Hollywood legend, but likemanysuch stories, the facts are much more interesting. The DeMille legend focuses especially on the most controversialof his early postwarfilms, Male andFemale (1919). Moralists grew outraged as soon as they learned ofDeMille'ssuggestive change of title from its source, James M. Barries play TheAdmirableCrichton, and the picture disappointed no one's expectations. In its famous bathroomscene Gloria Swanson, as Lady Mary, steps into a sunken bath the size of a small swimming pool, revealing a momentary glimpse of her breasts. Later DeMilleintroduced alavish Babylonian fantasy sequence not to be found in the original, taking his inspiration from a poem by William Ernest Henley, whose lines the butler Crichton quotes inthe play: "I was a king in Babylon/And you were a Christian slave." By all accounts, Male and Female could never have been made before World WarI. Itwas "a highly moral picture," Adolph Zukor, whose Famous Players-Lasky companyproduced the film, recalled in his autobiography, "yet its emotional theme the noblelady falling in love with the butler would probably not have been acceptable to prewar audiences." In LewisJacobs' classic study, Male and Female is called "more daring inits subject matter than any other picture Hollywood had produced."
DeMille, was, above all, a consummatesentimentalist. He had the knack of titillatingaudiences while at the same time reinforcing their conventional standards of lettingthem eat their cake and have it too. A few years later he discovered the most congenialform for his particular skills, the religious epic, which proved the perfect vehicle for hisdeft combination of moral didacticism and orgiastic fantasy. His "modern stories" in theearly postwar period were preliminary expressions of this long-enduring formula. Theytold moviegoers of the necessity for, and the boundaries of, social change that wouldnot disturb the inherited moralorder; and in dream sequences of opulent sensuality, setin ancient times, they provided a voyeuristic glimpse of forbidden pleasures and desires.
Harold Lloyd's Safety Last (1923), directed by Fred Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, is aclassic example of what happens to the aspiring young man in silent-movie comedy.Harold isasmall-town boygoingoff to the cityto starthis career andearn wealth andstatus sufficient to enable him to marry his small-town girl. He takes ajob ina departmentstore and writes glowing but false letters home telling of rapid advancement. Whenthegirl comes to visit he must gothrough elaborate comic byplay to demonstrate his exaltedposition without being caught.Meanwhile, in an effort to promote himself, he arranges a publicity stunt for thestore, a climb up its outside walls by a "human fly." An earlier joke played on a policeman backfires, however, and the cop chases the human fly, so that as the crowdgathersHarold has lost his performer. To save his idea Harold goes up the wall himself, in oneof the superb comic stunts in the history of motion pictures. His climb is impeded successively by pigeons, a tennis net, a painter's board, a clock, a mouse and a weathergauge. Each new encounter throws him into graver danger. After one harrowing comicescape after another, he finally reaches the roofand falls into his girl friend's arms. Onecould hardly ask for more graphic satire on the theme of "upward mobility."
As Paris settled back intocivilian life after the war, jazzmusicians struck up their rhythmsin venues all over the city. Audiences heard it in cabarets, nightclubs, dance halls, restaurants, and theaters. Many music halls first presented jazz during the regular show's intermission, but they soon moved it to the main program. In cafes, owners often decided totake advantage of the music's growing popularity and hired jazz bands to lure customersinto theirestablishments. Thesekinds of commercial concerns werecrucial motivations inIntroducingjazz to Paris. Just as jazz musicians were fanning out across Paris, important changes in the city'sentertainment culture were also underway to accommodate the newtastes ofaudiences.The evolution was particularly striking in one of the favorite gathering places of the1920s, the dance hall. The "dance craze" of the postwar years provided a business incentive to revamp old venues into flashy and fashionable hot spots so that they couldprovide space to do the latest steps. Many critics believed that not only was the musicdifferent in these places because of the introduction ofjazz, they were also beginning tolose theirtraditional character. Some came to see the growing presence ofjazzthroughout the city along with the ways in which it altered where and how Parisians enjoyedthemselves as an indication of the changing nature of modern life more generally. Andtalking about jazz was one way of debating what those changes meant.
Another modern development, the new media that were created or improved in the early twentieth century, allowed the sounds of jazz to be carried across great distances. Indeed, perceptions about jazz music cannot be separated from the technologyespecially phonographs and radiosfrom which it roared. Being connected with such devices further equated jazz with the cutting edge of cultural developments. Jazz was un emusiquenegre whose immediate origins were African American, but whose ultimate roots French writers generally traced to the jungles of Africa. The African sensibilities, French critics stressed, had been preserved in jazz because of the common racial connection between its performers and their ancestors on the so-called Dark Continent. Even when white musicians played jazz, they were believed to be performing a black musical style. At the height of its popularity, jazz music could suggest an "Africanization" of Francean ironic reversal of the colonial project simultaneously underway in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1920s and 1930s.Jazz rested at the intersection of these two powerful and controversial trends, thereby making it all the more meaningful and controversial.