The Shifting Status of African Americans

http://jbs.sagepub.
com
Journal of Black Studies
DOI: 10.1177/002193479802900202
1998; 29; 154 Journal of Black Studies
Rebecca Kook
Collective Identity
The Shifting Status of African Americans in the American
http://jbs.sagepub.com
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of Black Studies Additional services and information for
http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/2/154
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 8 articles hosted on the Citations
distribution.
1998 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
by Serban Vaetisi on November 2, 2007 http://jbs.sagepub.com Downloaded from
154
THE SHIFTING STATUS OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS IN THE
AMERICAN
COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
REBECCA KOOK
University of Haifa
This article examines the
change
that incurred in the status of
African Americans vis-a-vis American collective
identity
sur-
rounding
the civil
rights
movement. I
argue
that in terms of differ-
ent
symbolic
indicators,
African Americans were
completely
excluded from the American collective
identity up
until the 1960s.
From the 1970s and
onward,
a
gradual process
of inclusion in terms
of both written
symbols (textbooks
and
general
American
history
books)
and commemorative
symbols (postal stamps,
monuments,
holidays,
and the
like)
can be observed.
The 1980s and 1990s have seen a flourish of new studies on
American
identity (Fuchs, 1990; Karst, 1989; Kettner, 1978;
R. M.
Smith, 1995).
Although citizenship
is
presented
as the fundamental
focus of this
identity,
the
perspective
of these studies differs from
that characteristic of the more traditional ones
(Hartz, 1955; Kohn,
1957;
Myrdal, 1944).
Whereas the traditional works
portrayed
an
identity
and
citizenship
entrenched in ideas and
concepts,
the new
wave,
so to
speak, approaches citizenship through
the
prism
of
membership,
thus
shifting
the discourse from
ideology
and con-
cepts
to issues of inclusion and exclusion.
Perception
has shifted
from
citizenship
as an ideal toward
citizenship
as a
practical
and
operative
institution.
The earlier works
portrayed
an inclusive and static American
collective
identity.
Within the new
discourse,
general
issues of
membership, patterns
of
exclusion,
and not
merely
the
general
trend of inclusion are seen as central to the
understanding
of the
JOURNAL OF BLACK
STUDIES,
Vol. 29
No. 2,
November 1998 154-178
@ 1998
Sage
Publications,
Inc.
distribution.
155
American
political community.
This focus on issues of exclusion
brings
into
high
relief the
categories
of
ethnicity,
race,
and
gender.
The exclusion of different
minority groups
is not dealt with
tangen-
tially
or
implicitly
but is seen as an
integral part
of the understand-
ing
of American
political community.
Hence,
the contradictions of
citizenship
are
given prominence.
The research raises such
ques-
tions as follow: Are there and have there been
gradations
of citizen-
ship ?
What does this status of
citizenship
bestow on the individual?
What is the
relationship
between the institution of
citizenship
and
the American collective
identity?
In this
article,
I focus on the
relationship
between
citizenship
and
American collective
identity by exploring
the
symbolic
mecha-
nisms and
political logic
of inclusion.
Specifically,
I
explain
the
change
in the
membership
status of African Americans before and
after the civil
rights
movement in the 1960s.
Thus,
I contribute
toward an
understanding
of the
practical
and
operative aspects
of
identity
and
citizenship
alike.
AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
American collective
identity
is a difficult
concept
to
analyze.
Ingrained misperceptions
of American
identity,
residues of the
plu-
ralist
paradigm
that so
deeply
dominated
thinking
about America
for almost half a
century,
contend that in
fact,
there is no such
thing
as an American collective
identity. Unsurprisingly,
however,
most
Americans
identify
themselves as Americans
(hyphenated
or
not),
and there is
clearly
a
distinguishing
line between Americans and
non-Americans both within and outside of American
society (Wal-
zer, 1990).
Recent debates
concerning
multiculturalism and the
cultural fabric of American
society
are
testimony
to the existence of
an albeit
contested,
but existent
nonetheless,
American
identity
(Arthur
&
Shapiro,
1992).
Moreover,
there is a
history
of
scholarship
on American collec-
tive
identity,
which itself has
gone through
shifts and turns. Tradi-
tionally,
this
scholarship
has articulated the American
identity
as
distribution.
156
entrenched within two fundamental tenets. The first is that the iden-
tity
that bound Americans
together
and that
incorporated
them as
Americans was
ideational,
grounded
in the belief in a set of univer-
sal values. This
perspective
on American
identity
was first identi-
fied
by
the French social observer Alexis de
Tocqueville
and has
served as the
accepted
version or
interpretation
of American collec-
tive
identity
for almost two centuries
(Tocqueville, 1945).
Accord-
ingly,
American
identity
has been fueled
by
what
Tocqueville
iden-
tified as the
&dquo;equality
of conditions.&dquo; This fundamental
equality,
born out of the fact that America-as
opposed
to
Europe-lacked
a
feudal social
structure;
generated
a civic
identity;
and associated
more with the free exercise of civil
rights
than with a
particular
his-
tory, ethnicity
and cultural tradition.
Picture to
yourself...
if
you
can,
a ...
people differing
from one
another in
language,
in
beliefs,
in
opinions;
in a word a
society pos-
sessing
no
roots,
no
memories,
no
prejudices,
no
routine,
no com-
mon
ideas,
no national
character,
yet
with a
happiness
far
greater
than our own.
(Mayer,
1979,
p. 30)
The second characteristic was that the instances of exclusion
within American
society,
so
unavoidably exemplified by
the Afri-
can Americans and
by
the Native
American,
existed somehow out-
side of the collective
identity
and thus did not
seriously
alter the
essential
meaning
of it. These two tenets are
accepted by
most of
the so-called canonical theorists of American
identity (Arieli,
1964; Hartz, 1955; Kohn, 1957;
Lipset,
1966;
Myrdal, 1944).
Accordingly,
American
identity
is seen as rooted in the notion of
citizenship,
and the mere belief in this notion is
enough
to serve as
an
inclusionary
mechanism.
Citizenship
was the
only
criterion which made the individual a
member of the national
community:
and national
loyalty
meant
loy-
alty
to the Constitution. The formative force of American national
unity
has
been, then,
the idea of
citizenship; through
this
concept
the
integration
of state and
society
into a nation has been achieved.
(Arieli,
1964,
p. 22)
distribution.
157
American
identity
is itself a
conceptual entity,
defined
by
shared
beliefs and
quite
divorced from the individuals who
populated
it.
The values of
equality,
individualism,
and achievement are seen to
underlie the basic
identity
of American
society,
that
is,
basic liberal
values.
Hence,
the American &dquo;character&dquo; is defined in nonethnic
and
distinctly political
terms-for
example,
the
prototype
of the
territorial nation-that
is,
a collective whose
defining
characteris-
tics are
mainly
civic and territorial is characterized
by
a
legal
and/or
political community
and a common civic culture and
ideology
(A.
Smith, 1986, 1992).
This
portrayal
of American collective
identity emerges
as funda-
mentally
static and
nonchanging
in both its contours and content. It
assumes to
incorporate
a
people,
without
designating any
concrete
mechanisms that determine
exactly
who constitutes this
people.
It
is founded on adherence to a set of
values,
whereas the
application
of the values is
presented
as
belonging
to a different realm of
reality
and a different
discipline
of
study.
Because
analytically
the institu-
tion of
citizenship,
at least
following
the
passing
of the 15th amend-
ment,
was
inherently inclusionary,
this discourse saw no need to be
concerned with
specific exclusionary
or
inclusionary
mechanisms.
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND
AMERICAN COLLECTIVE IDENTITY
Nonetheless,
American collective
identity
is not
only
inclusion-
ary
but for a
long
time in its
history
was
blatantly exclusionary
toward certain
groups.
The case of African Americans is undoubt-
edly
a
prime example
of the
discriminatory
and
nonegalitarian
aspect
of American
democracy
and American collective
identity.
With the establishment of the United
States,
and the
writing
of the
constitution,
African Americans were considered to be
property.
As
property, they
were denied the basic
rights
afforded to citizens
of liberal
democracies,
as well as the basic human
rights
secured for
the
average
citizens of the new federation.
They
had no
protection
under
law,
save the
protection
accorded to
property
(Foner, 1990).
distribution.
158
As
property,
there is
clearly
no
question
as to whether African
Americans
were,
at that
time,
members of the
newly
founded
American
nation,
and as such members of the American collective
identity.
However,
at this
time,
more then 200
years
later,
it is
equally
uncontested that
they
are. On the
whole,
they
are consid-
ered
by
others and
by
themselves to be
hyphenated
Americans:
African Americans
(Huntington,
1985; Martin, 1991).
Two
ques-
tions
immediately
surface: How does the above
portrayal
of Ameri-
can collective
identity grapple
with the blatant exclusion of African
Americans, and,
When were
they
included?
The answer to the first
question
was
partially
satisfied in the
brief
presentation
above. The exclusion of African Americans
(and
other minorities such as American
Indians, women,
and so
on)
was
seen as
existing
outside of the value
system promoted
and defined
by
the American creed. This
type
of dichotomous
perspective
enabled all of the main theorists to maintain the universalistic
vision of American
identity,
while
acknowledging
the
reality
of
racism,
segregation,
reservations,
and the like.
The answer to the second
question
is more
complex.
The intui-
tive
response
is to
point
to the
post-civil
war
period
and the
passing
of the reconstruction amendments.
Nonetheless,
neither
emancipa-
tion nor reconstruction
managed
to dictate a clear-cut
relationship.
By establishing equal citizenship,
the reconstruction amendments
allowed Americans to think of their civic nation as inclusive. Their
quick
reversal, however,
exemplified by
the establishment of the
Jim Crow
system
in the
South,
and the maintenance of severe infor-
mal discrimination in the
North,
in effect rendered this short lived.
Close examination of the American
symbolic
matrix offers
insight
into this
question.
To a
very large degree,
the construction of
a collective
identity
is
essentially
an act of
constructing
and recon-
structing
the nations
past.
Moreover,
the essence of inclusion
is,
as
was
mentioned,
the act of official
recognition. Recognition
of iden-
tity-group
or individual-is essential to the formation of ones
identity.
Similarly,
the lack of such
recognition,
or the
misrecogni-
tion of
identity,
bars the
path
to the
development
of a collective
identity.
distribution.
159
Our
identity
is
partly shaped by recognition
or its
absence,
often
by
the
misrecognition
of
others,
and so a
person
or
group
of
people
can
suffer real
damage,
real
distortion,
if the
people
or
society
around
them mirror back to them a
confining
or
demeaning
or
contemptible
picture
of themselves.
(Taylor,
1995,
p. 249)
The
primary
arenas in which the act of
memory
construction
takes
place
are
symbolic.
The
images triggered by
the
symbols
cumulatively
make for the memories of the collective
past.
Com-
monly,
one encounters
monuments, museums,
holidays,
and the
like,
which stand
for,
or
symbolize,
some event of
heroism, (or
dis-
asters)
which are
presented
as central to the collectives
history.
In
the course of
analyzing
these
images,
what is
symbolized
is as
sig-
nificant as what is not
symbolized.
We learn as much about Ameri-
can collective
identity
from the existence of a
stamp
in
memory
of
Lou
Gehrig
as from the
absence,
from the
postal
canon,
up
until
recently,
of women.
The
following
discussion of written and commemorative
sym-
bols
highlights
a dramatic shift in the
membership pattern
of
American collective
identity.
WRITTEN SYMBOLS
TEXTBOOKS
The
process
of
writing
the
past,
in the formal framework of his-
tory
books
is,
perhaps,
the most direct
way
of
constructing
a
national
memory.
As a direct
text,
the
process through
which the
symbolic import
is transmitted does not
necessarily
involve the
typically symbolic process
of
bestowing subjective meaning
to the
form of the
symbol.
The
meaning
intended is more or less at face
value.
Nonetheless,
the
writing,
and
rewriting
of
history, through
conventional
history
books,
and more
significantly,
textbooks,
is a
classic
symbolic
vehicle.
Through history
books,
chosen
symbols
of a nations
past
are transmitted and elaborated on.
distribution.
160
The
history
book
may
be
perceived
as
fundamentally
the
biogra-
phy
of the nation. The vivid
images
that
people
retain of a nations
past
are drawn from its
pages.
Much has been written about the
theoretical and
practical objectivity
of the
historian,
and about the
process
involved in the selection of which facts to include or
exclude in the
writing
of
any
kind of
history (Carr, 1972;
Popper,
1961).
One
simple yet
most fundamental
aspect
of this vast debate
is who is included in the nations
history
and who is excluded. In
other
words,
when one
speaks
of a nations
history,
whos
history
is
one
referring
to?
A formidable
change
occurred in the American
self-image
in the
mid-1960s. The
change
revolved around the ethnic or national con-
text of American
society.
Hence,
the
major changes
reflect the
way
in which Americans
perceived
how
they
were
incorporated
together
as
Americans,
how
they contemplated
the
relationship
between the whole and its constituent
parts.
The
change
in the
relationship
between African Americans and
American
society
constituted one of the most dramatic
changes.
Early
textbooks,
from the first decades of the
century, rarely
men-
tion African
Americans,
and when
they
do,
the references are
imbued with racist
implications
and
commentary. Although
in
most cases the blatant racism decreased
gradually,
as late as the
1950s,
African Americans were
portrayed
as
part
of American his-
tory only
in their
capacity
as slaves.
Hence,
it is
actually slavery,
as
an
institution,
that is discussed and not the
group
itself.
They
were
neither
perceived
as nor did
they
constitute an
integral part
of
American collective
identity (Kane, 1970; Katz,1971 ). A represen-
tative text of the 1950s would
beg[i]n
its first section on the
population
of the US
by saying,
&dquo;leav-
ing
aside the
Negro
and Indian
population,&dquo;
and it
proceeded
to do
just
that. The Blacks were never treated as a
group
at
all;
they
were
quite literally
invisible.
(Fitzgerald,
1979,
p.
84)
A
particularly telling example
is afforded
by
the 1961
yearbook
of the National Council for the Social Studies
(Cartwright
& Wat-
son, 1961).
The
yearbook
that is
published periodically by
the
distribution.
161
National Education Association
(NEA),
Washington,
D.C.,
serves
as a
guide
for
high
school educators. It
provides
extensive
bibliog-
raphies
and summaries of the new
developments
in the various sub-
fields of American
history.
This
specific yearbook
is structured
chronologically.
It has 17
chapters, starting
with the colonies and
ending
with
then-contemporary
issues such as the cold war. Its self-
declared aim is &dquo;to
encourage
critical
thinking through
the
interpre-
tive
approach&dquo; (Cartwright
&
Watson, 1961,
p.
xxi).
As a
guide
published by
the
NEA,
it is read
by
thousands of educators and is of
great
influence in the determination of school curriculum. In this
light,
its
mention,
or rather
nonmention,
of African Americans is
particularly significant.
As is
expected,
this
yearbook
states in its
general
introduction,
&dquo;The
slavery dispute,
the civil war and reconstruction constituted a
three decade
long
crisis,
the
sharpest
and
gravest through
which the
nation has
gone&dquo; (Cartwright
&
Watson, 1961,
p.
xx).
Out of a 300-
page
volume,
only
3
pages
are devoted to this
&dquo;gravest&dquo;
crisis. Two
additional
pages
are devoted to a discussion of &dquo;local
politics
and
the
Negro.&dquo;
The
history
of the African
Americans,
their role in the
development
of American
history,
African American cultural and
political figures-none
of these-or other similar issues are even
remotely
related to. The NEA
guide
is
typical
in this
aspect
of most
pre-1960s
textbooks
(e.g., Fitzgerald,
1984; Kane, 1970;
Todd &
Curti, 1950;
West & West
1934, 1948).
On the
whole,
very
little
attention is
paid
to this
group,
and when it
is,
it is
stereotypical
and
focuses
exclusively
on &dquo;the slave.&dquo;
Furthermore,
the
conception
of
African Americans
portrayed
is based on the
prejudiced stereotype
of African Americans that served to
legitimate
and
perpetuate
slav-
ery :
that
is, submissive, carefree, contented,
lazy,
and
irresponsible.
Textbooks
published
from the mid-1960s onward tell an
entirely
different
story.
The
story
differs on a number of dimensions.
First,
the amount of attention devoted to African Americans
grows
enor-
mously.
Until and
throughout
the
1950s,
the
only
African Ameri-
can
exemplars
were Booker T.
Washington
and Dred Scot
(always
pictorially presented
with his
cross-eyed gaze) (Fedyk, 1979).
Beginning
in the late
1960s,
more and more African American
personalities
are
discussed,
from
sports figures, through
artists and
distribution.
162
musicians,
to
political personalities.
This
finding
is substantiated
by
a number of studies that
compared
textbooks from both
periods
(Garcia
&
Goebel, 1992;
Glazer &
Uda, 1984;
Sleeter &
Grant,
1990).
The
growth
in the number of these kind of studies is in itself
part
of the
change
that was
spawned during
the 1960s
(Reinhold,
1992).
Second,
the
way
in which African Americans themselves are
portrayed changes,
with an
increasing emphasis
on
positive quali-
ties,
personalities,
and contributions. In the context of the exem-
plar,
as was noted
above,
not
merely
does the African American
appear
more often but he
(literally he)
appears increasingly
as a
positive
role model. There is also an increase and diversification of
pictorial
illustrations,
of African American
doctors,
and of inte-
grated
class rooms
(Fitzgerald,
1984; Kane,
1970).
In
addition,
the
African American soldier
emerges
as a dominant
model,
exempli-
fying
the American
qualities
of
patriotism, loyalty, courage,
and
selflessness. The African American is now more
likely
to be associ-
ated with traits such as
intelligence,
talent, ambition,
and success.
Most
significantly,
then,
the
image
of a
positive exemplar emerges,
reflecting
the same
qualities
associated with the American charac-
ter and with the
good
citizen:
ambition,
energy, self-improvement
through
education,
training,
and hard work. The African American
becomes an American.
Third and
finally,
the entire discourse
surrounding
American
identity
was
fundamentally
altered.
Conceptions
of a
melting-pot
society
lost their fashionable
appeal
and were
rapidly replaced by
new
concepts,
such as
multiculturalism,
ethnicity, group
and
minority identity,
and so on. This
changed
context is crucial to
understand the shift in the status of African Americans because the
changing
context both was a result of the
particular change
of Afri-
can Americans
and,
in due
course,
served to further influence the
dynamic relationship
between this
group
and the
larger society
in
which it existed. No less
important
of
course,
is the interaction
between the different
composite changes
(i.e.,
the
impact
of the
feminist movement on the civil
rights movement).
The sudden
inclusion of a
variety
of
groups required
a
reappraisal
of the entire
narrative of American
history
and
identity.
distribution.
163
COMMEMORATIVE SYMBOLS
POSTAL STAMPS
The first
stamp
that honored an African American
appeared
as
part
of the Famous Americans
set,
in 1940. This
stamp
honored
Booker T.
Washington.
Until
1967,
a total of five
stamps,
which in
some
way depicted
Blacks or Black
issues,
were issued. Three out
of the five
depicted
Blacks-two
commemorating
Booker T. Wash-
ington,
(one
picturing
his
house)
and one of Dr.
George Washington
Carver. The other two commemorated events such as the Thirteenth
Amendment and the
Emancipation
Proclamation.
Thus,
those
stamps
issued
prior
to the
passing
of the 1964-1965 civil
rights leg-
islation that do
pertain
to Blacks
portray
either
symbols
that are
relatively
neutral,
proclamations
of
equality
and
portrayals
of
national
symbols
such as
Lincoln,
or that are well-known &dquo;token&dquo;
Black
figures
such as Carver and
Washington.
From 1965 until
1990,
a total of 23
stamps
that commemorated
African Americans were issued. All 23 commemorated
specific
African American
personalities
such as Paul Lawrence
Dunbar,
John
Trumball,
Harriet
Tubman,
Martin Luther
King,
Jr.,
Whitney
Moore
Young,
Dr.
Ralphe
J.
Bunch,
and others. In
1981,
the Black
Heritage
Series was
initiated,
which issues at least one new
stamp
almost
every year.
Moreover,
we witness the
gradual
inclusion of
African Americans in all-American series such as the American
Arts
Series,
American
Revolutionary
Bicentennial
Series,
Great
Americans
Regular
Series,
Performing
Arts Series
(Black Heritage
on U.S.
Stamps,
1990.)
MONTHS AND HOLIDAYS
An additional commemorative
category
includes
holidays
and
special
extended-commemorative
periods.
Prior to the
passing
of
the civil
rights legislation
in
1965,
no national
holidays,
or com-
memorative weeks or
months,
had ever been established to cele-
brate either an African American
person,
or event of
significance
to
the African Americans. Since the
1960s,
two such
holidays
have
I- - - -- - __..._L1~_L_~
distribution.
164
In
February
1976,
President Ford
proclaimed
February
as the
National Black
History
Month
(New
York
Post,
February
10,1976,
p.
1).
Black
History
Month is the heir to
Negro History
Week,
later
to become Black
History
Week,
established in 1926
by
Dr. Carter
G. Woodson.
Woodson,
historian and founder of The Association
for the
Study
of
Negro
Life and
History,
established this week to
mark the
development
of Blacks in the United States. In the
1960s,
the weeks name was
changed
to Black
History
Week.
Finally,
as a
result of an initiative started
by
the Association for the
Study
of
African American Life and
History,
President Ford
acknowledged
the commemorative month and declared it a national event.
The second event is the establishment of the federal
holiday
to
commemorate Martin Luther
King,
Jr. On November
2, 1986,
President
Reagan signed
the bill
establishing
a federal
holiday
in
honor of Martin Luther
King,
Jr. The
holiday
was to take
place
on
every
3rd
Monday
in
January, starting
1986.
Overcoming
fierce
opposition
and
widespread
debate
(Congressional Digest,
1983;
Hearing
of H.R.
800,
1983) finally
on
January
20, 1986,
the first
national Martin Luther
King,
Jr.,
Day
was celebrated across the
nation
(Hornsby,
1991; Ploski, 1989).
MONUMENTS,
NATIONAL
LANDMARKS,
AND MUSEUMS
As is the case with other
symbolic categories, representations
of
African Americans on war memorials was also slow in
coming.
Despite
the fact that African Americans have
participated
in all the
American war
fronts,
from the
Revolutionary
War and
onward,
it is
widely acknowledged
that their contribution and indeed their
par-
ticipation
has
only
been
recognized
and honored since the civil
rights
movement
(Bodnar, 1992;
Mayo, 1988).
Since the
1960s,
a number of memorials have come to com-
memorate African Americans. The contribution of the 19th
century
Black
cavalrymen
known as &dquo;the buffalo soldiers&dquo; is
recognized by
U.S.
Army
Museums. In
1983,
the National Air and
Space
Museum
included a
temporary
exhibit of the Black
eagles,
a
fighter squadron
that was a
pioneer
in
demonstrating
Blacks
ability
and
courage
in
battle.
Finally,
the Vietnam Memorial statue includes a Black man
as one of the three soldiers in the
composition.
distribution.
165
Until the
1970s,
virtually
no landmarks or
parks
existed that
honored African Americans. The
designation
of landmarks is
accepted
as a
sign
of the
general recognition
of the historical
impor-
tance of the
subject
honored.
Hence,
the absence of such landmarks
can be seen as
quite
a
meaningful
indication of the lack of
impor-
tance attributed to African Americans within the more
general
American context. In
1970,
the Parks Service initiated a landmarks
program
for
&dquo;relevance,&dquo;
which
sought
to address this
lacuna,
and
was
significantly
financed
by congress.
In
July
1974, 13
sites were
chosen and
designated
as landmarks
including, among
others,
Mar-
tin Luther
Kings
church
during
the bus
boycott,
the Ida B. Wells-
Barnett House in
Chicago,
the Harriet Tubman Home for the
Aged
in
Auburn,
New
York,
and others. Continued
surveys
resulted,
with
61 African American landmarks
by
1977
(Mackinntosh, 1985).
As these
changes
in the
landmark, monument,
and
postal poli-
cies
indicate,
the 1970s ushered in a
period
of
progressive
inclusion
of African American cultural
representations
into the mainstream
of American culture.
By
the late
1970s,
African American
history
was
part
of most American
public
and academic institutions. This
general
trend was
reflected,
and of course
reinforced,
by
the estab-
lishment of
separate
African American museums whose
purpose
was to define the narrative of this
groups history
and its
potential
relationship (or
rather
relationships)
to American
identity (Stewart
&
Ruffins, 1986,
pp. 307-339.)
This was
possible largely
because
of the
support
and attention
given
to African American
history.
The Museum of Afro-American
History
in Boston
(Byron
Rush-
ing),
for
example,
tried to reflect the
expanding
awareness of cul-
tural
nationalism,
indicative in most cases of the
emergent
sense of
African American
ethnicity
versus African American race. In
Sep-
tember
1967,
the Anacostia
Neighborhood
Museum of
Washing-
ton, D.C.,
was established
by
the Smithsonian. This case reflected
the desire to create an African American museum that would
help
to minimize the
general
sense of alienation of this
community
from
the formal
representations
of American
culture,
and enable them to
feel that the Smithsonian was their institution. Other museums
include,
for
example,
the Sable Museum in
Chicago
and the Elma
Lewiss National center of African American Artists.
distribution.
166
African American
public history, during
this same
period,
gained
access to mainstream American institutions of culture such
as the
Brooklyn
Museum,
the Field Museum in
Chicago,
the Los
Angeles County
Museum of
Arts,
the National Portrait
Gallery,
and
the National Museum of
History
and
Technology.
These museums
started
organizing
exhibitions that
emphasized
African American
contributions to American social and cultural
history.
At the same
time,
documentary
and feature films in addition to television
spe-
cials were funded to
report
on African American issues.
Finally,
African American
history
was
incorporated
into the
public
school
agenda through special
assemblies and lectures
during
the Black
history
month,
and in
general,
observance of this month became
regular
calendar events in most
major
White universities across the
nation
(Stewart
&
Ruffins, 1986).
THE INCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS
What is the
meaning
of this
change,
and
why
did it
happen
when
it did? Most discussions of African American
history,
or indeed of
American
history
in
general, highlight particular legal junctures
as
critical. For a
population
whose existence has been so
critically
determined
by
discrimination,
instances that mark either the insti-
tutionalization of discrimination
(Dred Scott,
Jim
Crow,
Plessy
vs.
Ferguson, etc.)
or the
breaking
down of these institutions
(Brown
vs.
Topeka,
1960;
1964 civil
rights legislation) emerge
as central to
the national-or subnational-narrative
(Combs,
1995; Foner,
1990; Karst, 1989).
Even a
cursory glance
at the historical and
sociological
literature on African Americans reveals both a
pre-
dominance of
legal
histories and a
clearly
formal or
political
orien-
tation in other
types
of histories.
Indeed,
the
history
of African
Americans can be told
through
a
history
of
legislation.
However,
in an
attempt
to
superimpose
the
history
of African
Americans on the historical
development
of American
identity,
it
would
appear
that
despite
the undoubted
significance
of Brown and
previous
civil
rights legislation,
the 1964 Civil
Rights
Act and 1965
voting rights
act
emerge
as the critical watershed in terms of the
distribution.
167
inclusion of African Americans into the collective American
identity.
The Civil
Rights
Act of 1964 was
by
far the most extensive
piece
of civil
rights legislation
ever
passed.
Its
many
titles covered most
aspects
of race relations in the United States:
voting, public
accom-
modations,
employment,
education,
and health care. Two achieve-
ments summarize the
significance
of the act. The first is the exten-
sive
power granted
to various federal
agencies,
from the
Department
of Justice to various federal
commissions,
to enforce
the law.
Thus,
for
example,
Title 4
gave
the
Department
of Justice
the
authority
to enter
pending
civil
rights
cases and to cut off federal
funding
to states and
agencies engaged
in
discriminatory practices.
It
empowered
the
Department
of Justice to initiate suits aimed at
desegregation
and to intervene in
voting rights
cases.
The second achievement was due to the
symbolic significance
of
Title
2,
which referred to
public
accommodations. With the now
fully empowered backing
of the
Department
of Justice and the U.S.
commission on civil
rights, segregation
in
restaurants, hotels,
thea-
ters,
and the like was
slowly
eliminated.
Hence,
both the
symbolic
displays
of exclusion and the
legal displays
were eliminated with
the
passing
of this act
(Whalen
and
Whalen, 1985).
The
big
achievement in terms of
voting rights
came with the Vot-
ing Rights
Act of 1965. The act ensured that local
jurisdictions
could no
longer impose
restrictions on
voting
such as the
literacy
test,
or the
accompaniment
clause,
demanding
that a
person
desir-
ing
to
register
be
accompanied by
two
registered
voters,
which de
facto
prevented
most African Americans from
registering.
In Ala-
bama,
for
example, only
2% of the African American
population
was
registered
to vote. The
Voting Rights
Act
gave
the
attorney
general
and the
Department
of Justice
enlarged powers
of interven-
tion and enforcement: the
right
to file suit to enforce
registration
and the
right
to
preclear any
cases of
gerrymandering
that would act
against
African Americans.
Essentially,
it
complemented
the Civil
Rights
Act of 1964 in
asserting
the
authority
of the federal
govern-
ment over the state
government
in all issues
pertaining
to civil
rights
(Davidson
&
Grofman, 1994; Fuchs,
1990).
distribution.
168
In
light
of the
centrality
of
citizenship
and
political participation
to
membership
in the American
identity,
no act of
legislation
com-
pares
in
significance
to the 1960s
legislation.
The 1960s debate
over the civil
rights legislation,
which
sought
to
grant
the Black
population
full
rights
of
citizenship,
can be read
simultaneously
as
a debate over the definition of a
specifically
White American
nationality,
as
opposed
to the more inclusive &dquo;multiracial&dquo; Ameri-
can
nationality.
The
debate,
like other similar
ones,
took
place
and,
to some
degree,
still takes
place
in terms of who
properly
is a mem-
ber of the American nation and who is not.
Indeed,
most central texts on both African Americans and on
American
identity agree
that the 1960s
legislation
marked a water-
shed.
Together, they
served as mechanisms of inclusion and mem-
bership
because of the
significant
sense of
empowerment
that con-
sequently
resulted for African Americans
(Weinberg, 1991).
Extending
the franchise and
ensuring
federal enforcement of other
basic civil
rights together
served to
incorporate
African Americans
into the American
political
nation.
Full
membership
in the
polity
is
impossible
if one is
prevented
from
participation
in the
communitys public
life. A sense of
belonging
is tantamount to a sense of
potential participation
and
potential
influence on the
policies,
values,
and normative life of
that
community. Denying
access to the main avenues of
participa-
tion
is, therefore,
tantamount to exclusion from the communal
spirit.
Racial
segregation
not
only stigmatizes
its
victims;
it also excludes
them from full
participation
as members of
society, treating
them as
members of a subordinate caste.... Denial
of respect
not
only
inhib-
its the
integration
of the
groups
members into the
larger society
but
also undermines the value of
belonging
to the
group. (Karst, 1989,
p. 323)
This
belief,
that
political participation
is related to the distribution
of economic
resources,
is shared and has been
demonstrated,
by
many
scholars and also
by
most
participants
in the civil
rights
movement
(Button, 1989; Hamilton, 1986;
Jaynes
&
Williams,
1989). Hence,
the achievement of basic
political rights,
most
distribution.
169
important
the effective enforcement of the
franchise,
meant far
more then the mere act of
voting
itself: When
political rights
mean
access to
political power,
and access to
political power
means
access to economic
advantage, empowerment
is a basic condition
of
equal membership
in the collective
identity (Hamilton, 1986).
Consequently,
formal and
legal legitimacy provided by
the two
civil
rights
acts,
coupled
a few
years
later with the
targeted
welfare
programs
of Johnson and his &dquo;Great
Society&dquo; platform,
reinforced
the
notion,
through
both
political
and social
entitlement,
that Afri-
can Americans now
belonged
to the American collective
(Divine,
1987).
The dramatic increases in the social services in the southern
communities in
particular (street
paving,
street
lighting,
education,
water
service,
housing
rehabilitation,
fire
protection, police protec-
tion,
and the
like),
and the rise in
employment
levels,
are
testimony
to the
newly acquired
inclusion
(Button, 1989).
The civil
rights leg-
islation and the
voting rights
bill
incorporated
African Americans
into more then the circle of American
voters,
it
incorporated
them
into the definition of American
identity.
In
addition,
the dramatic increases in both the numbers of Afri-
can Americans who
participated
as voters in
coming
elections and
the vast increases in the numbers of African Americans elected to
political positions
is
testimony
to the
importance
of this
legislation
to the
large
scale
incorporation
of this
group
into the core of Ameri-
can
identity.
As far as
voting
rates are
concerned,
the rates
among
southern African Americans rose from 10% in
1952,
to 30% in
1964,
to 70% in 1968. The
voting registration percentage
more then
doubled itself between 1960 and 1970 alone-from 27% to 67%.
The advances made in elected offices are even more
striking. By
1974,
for
example,
964 African Americans were elected to
public
office in six states with a
previous
record of severe
discrimination,
and
by
1979,
the number doubled
(Button, 1989).
In Louisiana
alone,
the number of African American
mayors tripled
from 1974
to 1980. The number of African American elected officials in the
entire United States
(including
the more
integrated
and liberal
North) rose,
from 82 in
1951, to 280 in 1964,
to 1469 in
1970,
and to
3,503
in 1975. The statistics follow a similar
pattern
in most
public
position
indicators. These include the number of African American
distribution.
170
judges, mayors,
school board
members,
council
members,
sena-
tors,
congressmen,
and the like
(Jaynes
&
Williams, 1989).
An
important
conclusion from these statistics is that
particularly
in the
South,
where
politics (and
hence the African American
population)
was almost
exclusively
controlled
by
Whites and where African
Americans
occupied
a
&dquo;subject&dquo; political
status in terms of
political
culture,
these
major
transformations in the racial balance of
power
transformed the African Americans
political
status from that of
&dquo;subject&dquo;
to that of
&dquo;participant.&dquo;
This
type
of
participant political
culture is but one more characteristic of the-at this
point
more
inclusive-American collective
identity (Almond, 1964; Button,
1989).
EXPLAINING THE CHANGE:
POLITICAL ACTION AND IDENTITY
What context
appropriately explains
the advent of this
change?
Clearly,
the civil
rights
movement was one of the most successful
social movements in the
century, mobilizing
an entire nation to its
cause and
single-handedly transforming
civil
rights
into one of the
most salient
political
issues in the United States.
Indeed,
it was the
political
salience of the issue that forced
congress
and the admini-
stration into action. Or in other
words,
it was this
political
salience
that
promoted
the
convergence
of the African American interest in
equal
civil
rights
and the
political
interests of the
Kennedy
and
Johnson administrations. In the final
analysis,
it was this conver-
gence
of interests that facilitated the
passing
of
legislation
and that
provides
the accurate context in which to understand the inclusion
of African Americans. Civil or social movements are
only
success-
ful to the extent that
they manage
to influence or transform
political
interests.
The
interest-convergence
model is
helpful
here
(Bell, 1992).
Accordingly,
actions to end racial discrimination in the United
States
cannot,
and should
not,
be understood
solely
in the context of
the
advantages gained by
those discriminated
against.
Of
equal
importance
are the incentives of those Whites who
participated
in
distribution.
171
the efforts to enact social and
political change.
These interests and
positive
incentives of the
particular
actors are informed-if not
guided-by
the interests and incentives of the
group
to which
they
belong,
be it
racial, economic,
or social. In most such
political
efforts,
a
convergence
of interests of the various coalition
groups
involved occurs.
Perceived in this
light,
what then
prompted
the
Kennedy
and
Johnson administrations into action? On the
surface,
the
response
is self-evident. The national media
coverage metamorphosed
the
impact
of the violent interracial
events,
bringing
them into the liv-
ing
room of almost
every family
in the
country (Harding,
1983;
Stern, 1992).
The almost
daily coverage
of violent race
riots,
the
aggression
of southern
police against
the
passive
resistance of
women and
children,
the radio and television access
given
to indi-
viduals who detailed their own
personal
stories of discrimination
and
persecution, together brought
home the horrors of the southern
racist
system
and made the famous
Myrdalian gap
between values
and
practice
that much harder to
ignore
or rationalize
(Morris,
1984; Stem, 1992). Clearly,
the national media
coverage
seems to
be the
single
most
important
factor in
explaining
the salience of
race and civil
rights during
the 1960s.
Nonetheless,
the
specific
way
in which this
coverage
affected
political
interests and motiva-
tions needs to be
spelled
out. This
coverage
influenced domestic
and international
politics
in two
primary ways.
The domestic arena. First of
all,
and most
simply perhaps,
the
media
coverage
transformed civil
rights
into a
primary
electoral is-
sue. This element forced the incumbent democratic administration
to
respond immediately
and
consequently changed
the traditional
balance of
power
between southern conservative state interests and
those of the more liberal North. The media
coverage
succeeded in
both
establishing
the
public
awareness
and,
perhaps
more
impor-
tant,
sustaining
the salience of the issue over time. The salience of
civil
rights
as an issue of tremendous national
significance
affected
the
public agenda
in two
ways.
First,
it mobilized
public opinion.
Studies
demonstrate,
for
example,
that
although
in
January
1955
less than 5% of the American
public
considered civil
rights
&dquo;most
important problem,&dquo;
in
1963-1964,
this
percentage jumped
to more
distribution.
172
than 40%.
Thus,
in answer to the
question
&dquo;Should African Ameri-
cans have
equal
chance
at jobs?&dquo;
in
1945,40%
agree,
whereas from
1960 to
1970,
this
percentage jumps
from 80% to 100%.
Similarly,
more than 80% of the
parents questioned
had no
objection
to send-
ing
their children to
integrated
schools in 1964
(Burstein, 1993,
pp.
163-166).
Clearly,
the statistical trend indicates that
public opinion
was
favorably
influenced
by
the civil
rights
movement and
by
the
coverage
of it.
Second,
the transformation of race into a salient
political
issue,
backed
by
a mobilized
public opinion,
forced,
so it
seems,
the intro-
duction of race and civil
rights
to the center of the
political
arena
and,
subsequently,
forced the two
major parties
to redefine their
political alignment.
Neither
Kennedy
nor Johnson entered their
administrations as staunch civil
rights supporters,
and their
posi-
tions on the issue were dictated
by strategic
calculations. The
dilemma of
Kennedy
and Johnson
was,
in
essence,
the dilemma of
the democratic
party:
&dquo;How to reconcile the needs of several
major
alliance
partners
who
acutely disagreed
over civil
rights:
southern
whites, blacks,
and the liberal allies of
blacks,
including
the
unions&dquo;
(Stern, 1992,
p. 4). Thus,
in
many ways,
the civil
rights
campaign
of both
presidents
is a
fascinating study
in
political
strategy.
Kennedy,
who had become infamous as a result of his 1957
pro-McCarthy
vote in
congress,
did not enter
politics
as a liberal
and was not attuned to racial issues
(Stern, 1992). Indeed,
as the
1959 democratic convention
began, Kennedy
was
perceived
as the
least
popular
candidate
among
African Americans.
However,
as the
presidential
election
approached, realizing
the
necessity
of African
American
support, Kennedy
initiated a moderate
courting process
of African American leaders. In an
attempt
to
develop
a balanced
campaign position
on civil
rights,
he
developed
a
relationship
with
Martin Luther
King,
Jr.,
on one
hand,
and chose Johnson as a run-
ning
mate on the other.
In
1961, however,
Kennedy
staked out an activist
position
on
civil
rights.
The freedom rides shook the administration into action.
The
policy
makers saw these activities as
harbingers
of a real crisis
and,
finally, perceived
them as
having
direct
bearing
on their
distribution.
173
reputation-both domestically,
in terms of the
perception
of the
White
population,
and
internationally,
in terms of the cold war
ideological rivalry
with the Soviet Union.
The issue of civil
rights gained
an accelerated momentum fol-
lowing
the
Kennedy
assassination. With his
swearing
in as
presi-
dent,
Johnson declared civil
rights
to be the main
guiding
issue of
his administration.
However,
he knew that to
garner
liberal
support,
he would have to be
open
about the issue: &dquo;I had to
produce
a civil
rights
bill even
stronger
than the one
theyd
have
gotten
if
Kennedy
had lived. Without
this,
Id be dead before I could even
begin&dquo;
(Divine, 1987,
p.
161).
Promoting
civil
rights
was a means for
Johnson for
establishing
himself as a
legitimate
national
leader,
for
ensuring
the
support
of the
Kennedy people,
and for
easing
his
image
as
merely
a southern
compromise.
The African American
vote became all the more
significant following
the 1964
legislation.
As a
result,
the federal
government relentlessly pursued
voter-
enforcement cases.
Hence,
the
voting rights
bill can be seen as a
convergence
of interests in civil
rights
and in
party
electoral
poli-
tics.
Registration
was a
necessary prerequisite
for
voting,
and
hence,
increasing registration
was seen as a democratic
campaign
tactic.
Indeed,
African American
registration
and
participation
were viewed as
key
elements in the future of the national demo-
cratic
party.
By
the end of
1964,
most of the American
public
believed in
enforcing voting rights
for African Americans.
Mobilizing
that
support
and
translating
it into
political
action
was, therefore,
the
primary strategic
concern. The demonstrations and
public outcry
served as the mechanism for such a
political
translation. The strate-
gic
interests were now defined and articulated:
Voting rights
became a
pivotal political
issue,
which enabled the
garnering
of
congressional support.
In
addition,
the added votes that would
result from an effective and enforced
voting
bill would cover the
political
costs,
so to
speak,
of White voter defection. The interests
of the
administration,
the
public,
and the civil
rights
movement
finally converged.
The 1964 and 1965 acts were a
product
of this
convergence.
distribution.
174
The international arena. On the international
arena,
coverage
of
the demonstrations and
protest
served
merely
to
heighten
the al-
ready
sensitive issue of race relations in the United States and its
impact
on the
reputation
of the United States as a leader of the free
and liberal world.
Unsurprisingly,
the Soviet Union
exploited
the
coverage
and
incorporated
it as
part
of its
ideological campaign
against
the United States.
Consequently,
the accumulative
impact
was
threatening
to
damage
American
standing
in the cold war ri-
valry, especially
in
regard
to its
position
in the third
world,
specifi-
cally
in Africa. Much as a
result,
the State
Department
considered
the domestic racial
problem
to be a
major foreign policy
issue.
Therefore,
any
effort to
promote
civil
rights
within the United
States was not
only
consistent but was seen as
contributing
toward
the central U.S. mission of
fighting
world communism.
Indeed,
this
was the case ever since the end of World War II and is considered to
have contributed toward various
major
civil
rights rulings,
includ-
ing
and
perhaps especially
Brown vs.
Topeka
Board of Education.
At that time the Truman Administration
impressed upon
the Su-
preme
Court the
necessity
for world
peace
and national
security
of
upholding
Black civil
rights
at home in a number of amicus briefs
detailing
the effect of racial
segregation
on U.S.
foreign policy
interests.
Analyses
of
foreign press
from the end of World War II and
through
the
early
1960s reveal extensive
coverage
of civil
rights
abuses in the United States. An
interesting example
is found in the
British
press,
in
which,
as a defense
against
the American attack on
Britains Palestine
policy,
the British
press
counters
by
an attack on
Americas double standard-the United States as bastion of free-
dom,
while
maintaining
racial discrimination at home. This cover-
age peaks during
times of unrest and
surrounding
the advent of
sig-
nificant
legislation. Although
it is difficult to establish a causal
connection between the two
issues,
it is
unlikely
that the cold war
atmosphere,
which was so
dominantly prevalent
from the 1950s
and
onward,
was
ignored by
the decision makers in the White
House. There
appears
to be a
convergence
between civil
rights poli-
cies and
actions,
and American
foreign policy
interests.
distribution.
175
CONCLUSION
In this
article,
I
expanded
on the
political logic
of democratic
inclusion:
Why
it
happens,
who does
it,
and how. The
molding
of
the boundaries of collective
identity-through
inclusion,
but also
through
exclusion-is one of the mechanisms available to
policy
makers and
political
leaders in their efforts to
govern,
maintain sta-
bility,
and
gain legitimacy.
Hence,
the
public good
of collective
identity
works so well because
ultimately
it is fashioned after the
interests of both the
governed
and those
governing.
To
qualify
for
membership
in the collective
identity
of the
polity,
citizenship
is a
necessary
condition,
but it is not sufficient. As I
demonstrated,
African Americans were citizens for close to 100
years
before
they gained
inclusion into the
identity.
It is
only
with
full inclusion that citizens are then
eligible
for the other
public
goods provided-legitimacy
and economic benefits.
Having argued
for the inclusion of African Americans into the
American collective
identity,
it is
important
to note that this act of
inclusion is itself not a
permanent
fixture of the
identity. Despite
their inclusion and their
eligibility
for the
public good
of collective
identity,
and
despite
the
hopes
that this act of inclusion would
bring
with it economic benefits and
legitimacy,
the
history
of the
past
30
years
is a mixed one. On
many
socioeconomic
indicators,
African
Americans have not fared as well as the
expectations
assumed.
Moreover,
the 1990s has ushered in a new outlook on
integration
and cultural cohesion. The
deepening
multicultural
outlook,
cou-
pled
with the backlash
against
such
fundamentally integrative
mechanisms such as affirmative
action,
have resulted in a more
skeptical
outlook on inclusion. The debate
surrounding
Ebonics
and the drive for
granting
collective cultural
rights
to African
Americans and to other minorities is but one manifestation of this
trend.
Collective
identity
and
citizenship
are, therefore,
truly complex
and flexible institutions. Toward the end of the 20th
century,
the
structure of the nation-state seems to be on the
verge
of
major
trans-
formations.
These
changes
are
apparent
in various
seemingly
distribution.
176
contradictory
trends: the obfuscation of national differences as
expressed by
the
European
Union,
on one
hand,
and the
flaring up
of ethno-national difference as demonstrated
by
the violent ethnic
conflicts in
Europe,
Africa,
and
Asia,
on the
other,
as well as the
multicultural demands in the United States. The
emergence
of
pos-
sibly
new forms of national
organizations
makes the
study
of col-
lective
identity
all the more relevant.
REFERENCES
Arieli,
Y.
(1964).
Individualism and nationalism in American
ideology. Cambridge:
Harvard
University
Press.
Arthur, J.,
Shapiro,
A.
(1995). Campus
wars: Multi-culturalism and the
politics of differ-
ence.
Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Bell,
D.
(1992).
Faces at the bottom
of the
well:
The permanence of racism .
New York: Basic
Books.
Bodnar,
J.
(1992). Remaking
America: Public
memory,
commemoration,
and
patriotism
in
the 20th
century.
Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
University
Press.
Burstein,
P.
(1979).
Public
opinion,
demonstrations,
and the
passage
of anti-discrimination
legislation.
Public
Opinion Quarterly,
43,
157-173.
Button,
J. W.
(1989).
Blacks and social
change: Impact of
the Civil
Rights
movement in
southern communities.
Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
University
Press.
Carr,
E. H.
(1961).
What is
history?
Middlesex,
England: Penguin.
Cartwright,
W.
H., Watson,
R.
L.,
Jr.
(1961). Interpreting
and
teaching
American
history
(31st yearbook
of the National Council for the Social
Sciences). Washington,
DC:
National Educational Association.
Combs,
M. W.
(1993).
The
Supreme
Court and African Americans: Personnel and
policy
transformations. Howard Law
Journal, 36,
139-184.
Grofman, B., Grofman, C., Grofman,
D.
(1994). Quiet
revolution in the South: The
impact of
the
Voting Rights
Act 1965-1990.
Princeton,
NJ: Princeton
University
Press.
de
Tocqueville,
A.
(1945). Democracy
in America. New York:
Vintage
Books.
Divine,
R. A.
(1987).
The
Johnson years. (part 2:
The
great society). Lawrence,
KS: Univer-
sity
Press of Kansas.
Fedyck,
M.
(1980). Conceptions
of
citizenship
and
nationality
in
high
school American his-
tory
textbooks,
1913-1977.
Unpublished
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
Columbia
University.
Fitzgerald,
F.
(1980).
America revised. New York:
Vintage
Books.
Foner,
E.
(1990).
The Blacks and the constitution. New
Left
Review, 183 , 63-75.
Fuchs,
L. H.
(1990).
The American
kaleidoscope:
Race,
ethnicity,
and civic culture. London:
Wesleyan University
Press.
Goebel, J.,
Garcia.
(1985).
A
comparative study
of the
portrayal
of Black Americans in
selected U. S.
history
textbooks. The
Negro
Educational
Review, 36,
124-136.
Ueda, G., Ueda,
N.
(1976).
Ethnic
groups
in
history
textbooks.
Washington,
DC: Ethics and
Public
Policy
Center.
distribution.
177
Hamilton,
C. V.
(1986)
Social
policy
and the welfare of Black Americans: From
rights
to
resources. Political Science
Quarterly, 101 ,
239-255.
Hardin,
R.
(1982).
Collective action . Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University
Press for
Resources for the Future.
Hartz,
L.
(1955).
The Liberal tradition in America: An
interpretation
of American
political
thought
since the revolution. New York:
Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Hornsby, A.,
Jr.
(1991). Chronology of African-American history.
Detroit: Gale
Research,
Inc.
Huntington,
S.
(1985).
American
politics: The promise of disharmony. Cambridge,
MA: The
Belknap
Press.
Jaynes,
G., Williams,
R. M.
(1989).
A common
destiny:
Blacks and American
society.
Wash-
ington,
DC: National
Academy
Press.
Kane,
M. B.
(1970).
Minorities in textbooks: A
study of their
treatment in social studies texts.
Chicago: Quadrangle
Books.
Karst,
Kenneth L.
(1989).
Belonging
to America:
Equal citizenship
and the Constitution.
New
Haven,
CT: Yale
University
Press.
Katz,
W. L.
(1968). Teachers guide
to American
Negro history. Chicago: Quadrangle
Books.
Kettner,
J.
(1978).
The
development of American citizenship:
1608-1870.
Chapel
Hill,
NC:
University
of North Carolina Press.
Kohn,
H.
(1957).
American nationalism. New York: Macmillan.
Lipset,
S. M.
(1963).
The
first
new nation: The United States in historical and
comparative
perspective.
New York: W. W. Norton and
Company.
Mackintosh,
B.
(1985).
The Historic Sites
Survey
and National Landmarks
Program:
A his-
tory. Washington,
DC:
History Division,
National Park
Service, Department
of the
Interior.
Marshall,
T. H.
(1965). Class,
citizenship
and social
development.
New York: Anchor.
Martin,
B. L.
(1991).
From
Negro
to Black to African American: The
power
of names and
naming.
Political Science
Quarterly, 106 , 83-107.
Mayer,
J. P.
(1979). Prophet of
the mass
age:
A
study of Alexis
de
Tocqueville.
New York:
Arno Press.
Mayo,
J. M.
(1988).
Remembrance as
political critique,
in War memorials
as political
land-
scape :
The American
experience
and
beyond.
New York:
Praeger.
Morris,
A. D.
(1984).
The
origins of the
Civil
Rights
movement: Black communities
organiz-
ing for change.
New York: The Free Press.
Myrdal,
G.
(1944).
An American dilemma: The
Negro problem
and American
democracy.
New York:
Harper
and Row.
Ploski,
H. A.
(1989).
The
Negro
almanac: A
reference
work on the
African
American,
5th ed.
Detroit: Gale
Research,
Inc.
Popper,
K.
(1961).
The
Poverty of Historicism .
London: ARK
Paperbacks.
Reinhold,
R.
(1991)
Class
struggle:
Californias textbook debate. New York Times
Maga-
zine,
Sep.
21 , 26-30.
Sleeter,
C.
E., Grant,
C. A.
(1991). Race, class,
gender
and
disability
in current textbooks. In
M. W.
Apple
and L. K. Christian-Smith
(Eds.),
The
politics of
the textbooks. London:
Routledge.
Smith,
A.
(1986).
The Ethnic
Origins of Nations .
Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith,
A.
(1992).
National
Identity.
London:
Penguin.
Smith,
R. M.
(1995). Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal
and Hartz: The
multiple
traditions in
America. American Political Science
Review, 87,
549-566.
distribution.
178
Stem,
M.
(1992). Calculating
visions:
Kennedy,
Johnson and Civil
Rights.
New
Brunswick,
NJ:
Rutgers University
Press.
Stewart,
J. C. and
Ruffins,
F. D.
(1986).
A faithful witness: Afro-American
public history
in
historical
perspective,
1828-1984. In S. P.
Benson,
S. B.
Rosenzweig,
& R.
Rosenzweig
(Eds.), Presenting
the
pat: Essays
on
history
and the
public. Philadelphia: Temple
Uni-
versity
Press.
Taylor.
C.
(1995).
The
politics
of
recognition.
In J. Arthur and A.
Shapiro (Eds),
Campus
wars: Multi-culturalism and the
politics of difference .
Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Curti, L., Curti, M., Curti,
P.
(1950).
Americas
History.
NY: Harcourt Brace.
Walzer,
M.
(1990).
What does it mean to be an American? Social
Research, 57, 591-614.
Weinberg,
M.
(1991).
The Civil
Rights
movement and educational
change.
In C. V.
Willie,
A. M.
Garibaldi,
& W. L. Reed
(Eds.),
The education
of African
Americans.
Westport,
CT.: Greenwood.
West,
W.
M., West,
R.
(1934)
The American
people:
A new
history for highschools.
Boston,
MA: Ginn.
West,
W.
M., West,
R.
(1948).
The
story of our country.
Boston,
MA:
Allyn
and Bacon.
Rebecca Kook is
assistant professor
in the
Department of Politics
and Government at
Ben Gurion
University.
She writes on issues
of citizenship
and national
identity
distribution.

The Shifting Status of African Americans

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Shifting Status of African Americans

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

http://jbs.sagepub.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen