Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1901-1909, view for the nation became known as the Rooseveltian Nation. In Gary Gerstle’s historical monograph called American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century he makes argument as to why the Rooseveltian Nation collapsed. He argued that the collapse was due to “racial antagonism, anti-war protests and cultural revolt” (313). The civic nation of the Rooseveltian Nation collapsed due to the Civil Rights which sought to integrated, civic nation, while the Black Power sought to segregate, racial nation. Gerstle defined Black Power as “a political ideology calling on African American to free their communities and consciousness from white controls” (295). In the 1960’s, Blacks
…show more content…
He argues that a nation, such as the civic, would be a wonderful place to reside in, for it inherits a soft-multiculturalist vision that tolerates difference and social solidarity generative. We may want soft- multiculturalism but we will not get it, for we will have groups that we will have to go to. He criticizes hard multiculturalists by arguing that a strong but tolerant civic nation for America is out of their reach. He proposed that in the future, American will go back to a racial nation that excludes others because it is so strong that it will stay with us and come as a new form, or if it exists, no one will want to have ties with the nation but the group that they identify with which is bad for the nation. Although, Gerstle criticize hard-multiculturalism, Assata Shakur, argues for its positivity in her memoir called Assata: An Autobiography. It focuses on her struggle for growth and meaning in New York and the South as an African American whose childhood and young womanhood was full of racism. Hard-multiculturalism has allowed her to free herself and her black communities and their consciousness from whites control by joining Black Power movements. She believed that the Civil Rights movement never had the chance of succeeding due to the benefits that Whites received from the oppression of Blacks, regardless of if they were from the North or the South. The Civil Rights movements wanted to integrate, but she argues that everything would not be better even if the South became like the North. The freedom of one has never been given to them by “appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them” (Shakur, 139). They used non-violence, but that would not give them what they wanted. They will have to use violence and fight back against any pushing, kicking, punching or spitting that happens to them. The
He argues that a nation, such as the civic, would be a wonderful place to reside in, for it inherits a soft-multiculturalist vision that tolerates difference and social solidarity generative. We may want soft- multiculturalism but we will not get it, for we will have groups that we will have to go to. He criticizes hard multiculturalists by arguing that a strong but tolerant civic nation for America is out of their reach. He proposed that in the future, American will go back to a racial nation that excludes others because it is so strong that it will stay with us and come as a new form, or if it exists, no one will want to have ties with the nation but the group that they identify with which is bad for the nation. Although, Gerstle criticize hard-multiculturalism, Assata Shakur, argues for its positivity in her memoir called Assata: An Autobiography. It focuses on her struggle for growth and meaning in New York and the South as an African American whose childhood and young womanhood was full of racism. Hard-multiculturalism has allowed her to free herself and her black communities and their consciousness from whites control by joining Black Power movements. She believed that the Civil Rights movement never had the chance of succeeding due to the benefits that Whites received from the oppression of Blacks, regardless of if they were from the North or the South. The Civil Rights movements wanted to integrate, but she argues that everything would not be better even if the South became like the North. The freedom of one has never been given to them by “appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them” (Shakur, 139). They used non-violence, but that would not give them what they wanted. They will have to use violence and fight back against any pushing, kicking, punching or spitting that happens to them. The