Class

To say that there was one key group in the political reform of the progressive era would lead to some ignorance on ones part. Marueen Flanagan stresses the importance of the male and female club’s within the city of Chicago during this period. She bases her argument for the importance of the female clubs, which she felt had not been properly observed, in reform by stating, “the process that led women to pursue political activity and political goals in the first place, and the reasons why their political goals differed from men of their own class, have not been examined.” On the other hand, Stromquist Shelton, “examines the politics of class and the origins of municipal reform.” His studies center on another city, Cleveland, but class reforms were large movements around the country

In coming to my own conclusions on the progressive movement I tend to lean more towards Shelton’s argument that had more to do with class than gender. I can take nothing away from the ways in which the clubs could organize movements such as dealing with the garbage situation in Chicago, or the way they attacked the shortcomings in the instruction of their children in the elementary schools. These were important issues that affected the city of Chicago directly, although they most likely could touch other areas of the country. I just think Stromquist has a better argument because the progressive movement to me was a move of the workers. Stromquist states, “Workers were agents in the construction of a new urban politics of reform, not simply its constituents or for that matter its beneficiaries.” With the introduction of the industrial revolution, and the factory, workers were given the power of numbers to dictate the policies of not only their workplace, but also their local governments, which also had influence on the national level. The power of the strike was a tool of mass strength that the workers had easily available at their disposal. This power brought about great political attention, as the strength of this group of people was now easily identifiable and it would now forever have to be addressed.

Political Cartoons

The picture portrayed here by Thomas Nash is one of a Chinese immigrant in America looking at a sign that states the prohibition of Chinese immigration. The Chinese individual obviously looks on in disgust as he is reading this with his arms crossed. Behind him stands a Native American with the depiction below stating “Red Gentleman to Yellow Gentleman “Pale face ‘fraid you crowd him out, as he did me.” Obviously the colors are reflective of what today can be seen as politically incorrect with the red gentleman referring to the Native American, the yellow gentleman referring to the Chinese Gentleman, and the Pale face referring to the white American. Above the two individuals is a picture showing a figure representative of a Chinese immigrant chasing after a rail locomotive with the words “Go East” underneath it. This would refer to the desire of the “Pale Face” for the return of the Chinese back to Asia. On top of this depiction is the rail locomotive chasing a figure representative of a Native American, with the words “Go West” under it. This would be representative of the “Pale Face” pushing expansion further west along with displacing the Native American groups that occupied land that stood in the expansionist way. Included on the wall above and below the sign calling for prohibition of Chinese immigration is a small sign for the KKK calling for the demise of the “nigger.” This is quite interesting as racial tensions would be very high between the whites and blacks at this time, but yet this is a very miniscule sign compared to the one in regards to the Chinese. You see in the background of the picture a black gentleman apparently completely at ease with what the other two characters are dealing with.  This character appears to have a smile on his face with a very relaxed posture with the words, “My day is coming,” behind him. It’s almost as if his frustrations that they have felt are now the frustrations of the Chinese and Native Americans.

Rights

The question of rights is of issue I am sure every day here in present day America. Turn on the television to COPS and you will see someone complaining that their rights have been violated. Who bestows these rights is of logical question. Being a Christian I would have to say that these rights are bestowed by God. Those that question this do have a point in questioning why it is that MY God bestows these rights, and is my God the correct one. So if we choose to avoid this very controversial topic of God given rights, who then can we point to having the authority to grant us rights. Do we look at our parents that bring us into this world as the bestower of rights? They have granted us life so why should they not grant us our rights in life? The question then becomes what happens when they pass on. Also we have examples everyday of those who do not follow in the will of their parents. Also families separate all the time. Are we to be granted rights from both parents, if so which is the dominant one we are to follow if there lies a contradiction. This falls under the idea of two different deities granting rights. Which one is correct? So if we come to a point where we cannot claim that a God or parent grants us rights is it then the government in which we reside. This makes sense as my rights would be revoked if I committed a crime. The question though becomes that since 1776 my government has remained the same in form, but yet things I may have been able to do in the eighteen hundreds, are now against the law. And things I can do now were banned back then. So I see it that rights are not granted by government or parents or God’s they are granted by the society in which you live. They are granted by those who either by election, age or some other factor have been put in place above us to administer our rights for the times in which we live. To me there is no question if there are rights or not, the question lies in how those rights are bestowed.

Equiano

In going through Brychan Carey’s table outlining the arguments for and against Equiano’s birth place one is compelled to realize the small differences between the two sides and the impact it could have on the historical portrayal of this unique person. After reading through The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano I do not feel that there is anything challenging about the descriptions he portrays as an adult. The most notable item that makes me question if he truly was from Africa or was in fact born in America as Vincent Carretta asserts, is his description of his initial capture. In being taken from his home along with his sister Equiano states that once they had reached a great distance from their home, “We were then unbound, but were unable to take any food; and, being quite overpowered by fatigue and grief, our only relief was some sleep, which allayed our misfortune for a short time.”[1] Taking into account that he is still a young boy at this time, it strikes me as odd that being in his own words as “trained up from my earliest years in the art of war,”[2] that his fight or flight instincts wouldn’t kick in and he would make any effort to escape. Being a young man in a culture as such, this seems as it would be the only response that one would have taken given the fact that they were unrestrained. He knew the idea of slavery and how it manifested itself within their African culture, and with this knowledge and the fact that he was still within one day’s distance of his home he makes no attempt to secure his freedom, in my mind casts doubts as Africa being his place of birth. Being as this was written at a time when abolition was a central theme, it seems to me that Equiano would have many narratives to draw from in his travels so he had an understanding of the African culture and middle passage. Even then the story of a young free boy being pulled from his home would have a much greater psychological effect on a reader that that of a boy being born in the south that rose above his enslaved beginnings to one day know the taste of freedom.

---

[1] The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano, ed. Robert J. Allison (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins 2007), 58.

[2] The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano, ed. Robert J. Allison (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins 2007), 57.

Columbus

Chistopher Columbus

            At the time of Chistopher Columbus’ first voyage known as the “Enterprise of the Indies,”[1] religion played little role in the formation of this journey. Columbus sought a shorter route to the Indies as he knew of the riches in trade that could be established. Having been denied support by the Portuguese King Joao II, Columbus sought financial backing from the Spanish Crown. After having completed a military victory for Granada the Catholic Monarchs approved of his journey.[2]

            The formal agreements between Columbus and the Spanish Monarchy don’t allude to the spreading of the Christian faith as the basis for the first exploration, instead the concerns with both parties dealt with the acquiring of wealth and power. The Monarchy was concerned with the Portuguese maritime accomplishments and the riches they could be acquiring, while Columbus wished to secure power over the lands and what would be nobility for his children as the agreement allowed for the powers to be passed hereditarily.[3]

            Now on Columbus’ second journey, Barolome De Las Casas describes him as being, “Everlastingly zealous of the honor of God, and imbued with a burning desire to convert these people that the faith of Jesus Christ should take root and multiply throughout these lands.”[4] It was stated that Columbus on his first journey upon meeting the Tainos felt that they were eager to be converted to Christianity,[5] so this portrayal is understandable since he knew that there were people that could be ruled and converted. The Monarchy though, sought what to me is an ulterior motive to incorporate religion into the second journey.

            With Columbus having to land in Lisbon on his return and King Joao II, learning of his journey claimed that he had sailed in waters controlled by Portugal, the Spanish Monarchy sought the intervention of the Pope to declare boundaries which therefore avoided a conflict between two tense nations.[6] This greatly benefitted the Spanish and at this point is when you see priests being added to the fleets crew along with bull’s issued by Alexander VI dictating the mission for these new missionaries.[7] Their Catholic faith led to the defeating of the Moor’s, but in the case of the America’s wealth and territorial gain seem to me as the driving factors for the backing of Columbus’ exploration.

---

[1] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 14.

[2] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 8-13.

[3] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 13.

[4] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 48.

[5] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 15.

[6] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 18-19.

[7] Geoggrey Symcox and Blair Sullivan, Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents, Bedford Series in History and Culture (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s 2005), 19.