Rooseveltian nation collapse and hard multiculturalism

American Morality

The Rooseveltian Nation was initially envisioned by Theodore Roosevelt during the epoch in which the U.S. triumphed in the Spanish American war and heralded its largely Anglo-Saxon nation of limited diversity as the most dominant race of a particular nation on the face of the earth. This concept was further solidified by the efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who strove to reinforce the notion of such a national consciousness, character, and racial makeup with his New Deal efforts. However, the Rooseveltian Nation ultimately crumbled due to a plethora of developments near the midway point of the 20th century. A close examination of those factors reveals that they were ultimately linked to the Cold War and to what many Americans believed was an inherent hypocrisy evinced by their country -- which left a number of new ideologies among them in their wake.

The Rooseveltian Nation was able to withstand the throes of the Civil Rights movement, yet it could not endure the backlash of the Vietnam War. Both of these disturbances as evinced in the domestic state of affairs of the country were inevitably linked to the Cold War. Despite the grumblings of segregated African-American ranks during World War II, America's hegemony was most dominant during the years immediately preceding it -- which helped to justify the conception of the Rooseveltian Nation. However, with the onset of the Cold War, numerous Americans began to perceive and, on a certain level, even resent the hypocrisy evinced by a country touted as ethically and morally superior during this martial encounter, yet which still enforced Jim Crow laws and rampant racist, prejudicial practices representing "the corruption of American ideals" (Gerstle, 312). This disillusionment ultimately resulted in the Civil Rights movement which was countercultural to the effect that it did involve numerous Americans outside of African-Americans and challenged the very definitions of Rooseveltian Nation's racial makeup.

The disillusionment and counterculture that fostered in the wake of the Vietnam War directly led to "the collapse of the Rooseveltian Nation" (Gerstle, 312). Firstly, it was the first war that America did not win. Additionally, it provided a prolonged instance for Americans to get acquainted with the bureaucracy and falsehoods upon which the political machine that the Roosevltian Nation championed was based. During the late 60s and early 70s the countercultural movement was at its strongest with an assortment of hippies, rock and roll artists and fans, lesbians, gays, and women's rights activists all vying for their own rights respective of those that were provisioned by the Rooseveltian Nation. Added to this unrest were the racial interests as advanced by the civil rights movement and a larger awakening of social justice for groups of different racial ethnicities including Mexicans and Chicanos, Asians and even Native Americans. Lyndon Johnson's lack of success in Vietnam and the counterculture represented by all of the aforementioned collapsed the Rooseveltian Nation.

All of the previously mentioned groups then advocated a vision of the American Nation in which solidarity and unity were not as important as individual rights were. Many of these groups were extremely disillusioned by their respective histories in the annals of the country, and therefore sought to make a future in which their mores, values and quality of lives were at variance with those of the establishment. Granted, each of them believed that they were entitled to the same rights as the establishment, but they believed that they could best pursue and actuate them based on independence and stratification rather than in assimilating to mainstream culture. Fragmentation within American society began in earnest following the collapse of the Rooseveltian Nation, a fact which the establishment has used to its advantage.

Part the Second

To best understand Gerstle's point of contention with the concept of hard multiculturalism, it is prudent to provide a nominal amount of background information about its term and its definition. Essentially, this term flourished in the 1980's during Reagan's presidency because many of the socio-economic policies he effected during his tenure (such as the so-called War on Drugs and Reaganomics) actually contributed to a revival, based on economic terms, of the racial nationalism. Although it did not fully restore that nation, it was still able to provide a means of first-class and second-class citizenship in the country based on economies means and capabilities. Hard multiculturalism then was an attempt to correct this source of racial stratification and posited the viewpoint that the mores and civic values of individual ethnicities were sufficient to correct racial nationalism and make America truly heterogeneous.

For the most part, scholars such as Gerstle find fault with this concept because they do not think that any individual ethnic group actually possesses the values necessary to complete this arduous task. Although the author does not necessarily disparage the values of individual racial groups, he is highly skeptical that the degree of homogeneity that exists within these groups are actually able to produce the sort of values that are encompassing of an entire nation that is so factionalized. To his credit, there is a tremendous amount of factionalism within the U.S. which pertains to not only varieties of races and ethnicities, but also to sexual proclivities, ages, religions, creeds, and a host of other factors. Additionally, Gerstle also does not necessarily believe that, due in some part to their experience in America, many of these groups have the sort of civic values that can actually produce the desired effect upon the country as a whole.

An author such as Assata Shakur, however, would likely have contradicted Gerstle in his belief that hard multiculturalism could never be sufficient enough to provide the sort of civic nationalism that America could use to truly bring about racial and social quality among all of its different groups. As a member of the Black Panther Party, Shakur was one of the proponents of a hard multicultural viewpoint to help save social equality and justice in America. She had experienced firsthand the need for such a an approach to civic nationalism in this country because of the way various members of the Black Panther Party (including herself) were hunted, tortured, vilified, and imprisoned simply for attempting to live within this country without being persecuted because of their race. Anyone who reads her autobiography could understand easily this point without an explanation from the author herself.