14.6: Political, Social, and Economic Impacts

Political implication may be viewed in U.S. Supreme Court cases such as, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 396 (1857). The decision is prior to the Civil War that determined a slave was not a person under the U.S. Constitution and therefore could not bring suit to establish freedom. Exactly how did the court define a person? The normal definition of a person may consider terms such as a being, human, individual; however, in the Scott decision the black man was determined as chattel, property, or personal possession. Subsequent to the war the public policy of “Separate but Equal” doctrine was a court fashioned social policy in reaction to the 14th Amendment. The doctrine was settled public policy positioned in the case of Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1897). The doctrine remained in America public policy for approximately 60 years until Brown v. Board of Education I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) at which time the separate but equal doctrine appeared to have lapsed.

Based on the foregoing the immediate question may be: Has “Separate but Equal” doctrine truly ended? Perhaps, the once overt socially acceptable practices of prejudice, bias and discrimination challenging race, ethnic origin, sexual preference, education, and gender has since gone underground. Self-righteousness and rationalization have since replaced active, open, aggressively violent, and socially accepted intentional practice of discrimination. As an example, although outwardly publically accepted segregation in schools was outlawed, the reality persists that countless populations consisting of the poorest of the poor are frequently sheltered in American inner cities. Populations within inner cities largely consists of minorities, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged creating covert segregation. Notwithstanding discrimination practices today, being covert and in many cases unintended, nonetheless it amounts to segregation. This salient point provides for the baseline discussion of America in Crisis. Perhaps contemporary discrimination in America is in denial or perhaps most have simply become complacent or in apathetic agreement with the status quo.

The momentum of the powerful and privileged, commonly thought of as white America, grew during the industrial revolution amplifying their grasp of public policy. The birth of the American Industrial Revolution primarily came about in the early 1800’s. The Cotton Gin invented by Eli Whitney (1793) separated cotton from the seed at a higher rate. Whitney’s invention separated the cotton at a higher rate but did not grow or pick the cotton. Thus, the Cotton Gin did not reduce the need for slavery but rather had the unintended consequence of increasing the need for slaves. Additional slaves were required as the workforce of choice to maintain sufficient inventories to keep up with Whitney’s invention. By 1860 one in three included in the southern census was a slave (Educators Resource, n.d.). On the other hand, the Cotton Gin did promote the need for additional inventions that stimulated the invention of spinning and weaving machines for cotton and the sewing machine for finished products. Additional impacts such as the Embargo Act (1807) and the War of 1812 aided the development of the textile industry in the northeast (Scherr, 2007).

Eli Whitney expedited the progress of the American Industrial Revolution with the introduction of interchangeable parts in manufacturing. From this idea of interchangeable parts spawned other industries such as steel, railroad, and auto. The need for factory workers had begun to transform America from the agricultural southern life style to the industrial north. Factories required workers as 72% of all American industry resided in the northeast by 1850 (Educators Resource, n.d.). However, the mass exodus of Black America from the south to the northern cities did not actually take place until after WWII (Piven & Cloward, 1993).

The social policy of the differing eras may suggest the conscious of many white workers in America. Specifically, the Irish did not fondly look upon the Negro’s emancipation for fear of a glut of workers impinging upon employment opportunities held by the Irish ethnic group. Minorities such as Negro, Mexican, and Asian workers were initially denied access to labor unions fearing these groups would inevitably degrade the quality of work (Hill, 1961; Takaki, 1993). Albeit many more African Americans have since joined the middle class after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, they do not necessarily find acceptance (Cose, 1993). There remains a vast Black populace that reside in poverty in contrast to whites as is the case for many minorities. Successful African Americans have described inclusiveness or lack thereof as issues including the inability to fit in, lack of respect, low expectations, faint praise, identity troubles, self-censorship, collective guilt, and exclusion from the club (Cose, 1993). Simplified, mere economic means does not necessarily measure equality (Amico, 2016).

What then or how much attention should be provided in this discussion regarding the plight of Native American Indians. The Indian in this discussion is an underprivileged class. One glaring contributing factor of this plight was that the value of Native American Lands was realized by western businessmen in America as early as President George Washington’s first term of office (Avlon, 2017). The powerful businessmen relied heavily on Congressional Lobbyist more so during the 1880’s to eliminate tribal communal living and property sharing practiced by the Cherokee Indians. The Cherokee illustration represents the intent of the businessmen to gain Indian properties. Often this plot was administered through treaties. The businessmen created a ruse, shrouding a land grab through the illusion of a feigned benefit to the Cherokee. The deceptive con used was property allotment for each male tribal member. Each male tribal member was issued his own piece of property rather than the existing communal practice. The suggestion fostered by this scheme was that it added to Cherokee manhood. The cessions were publicized as a benevolent and compassionate means to integrate the Native American into mainstream America (Stremlau, 2009). Problematic for the indigenous population was the fact Congress or the President may invalidate treaties at will and often did. As America struggles with its relationship with slavery, little or no attention is provided to Americas first tenants or natural born citizens. Advocates enthusiastically engaging in the process are erroneously viewed as similarly situated with early abolitionist (Stremlau, 2009). Treachery between American lobbyist (at behest of the American businessman) and Congress (Congressional Acts) has landed the Indian land acquisitions at the feet of the courts, that have subsequently ruled in favor of Native Americans reparations based on treaties or contractually based legalism.

Reparations have been appropriated and distributed to members of the tribal sovereign nations (Trosper, 1994). Once fines are paid does the discussion end regarding equality for a disadvantaged group? Albeit Indian reparations have done little to resolve inequities accomplished by white America it at least provides the pretense of an attempt to right a wrong. Unlike Native Americans, descendants of slavery have no such contractual claims and thus reparations for this class is relied mainly upon the good will of Congress. Consequently, raising further conflict between races as to whom should pay, especially since most contemporary America had not directly engaged in slavery. Does Congress levy an arbitrary tax on citizens today to fund a trust account for payment to an offspring of a former slave? Thus, establishing another entitlement that seems unsavory during current public administrations. A second, and much less desirable avenue for African American reparations is through judicial access. This avenue of relief relies heavily upon the ability for African Americans to demonstrate that their rights have been abridged by slave owners to bring suit against a slave owner’s family. This avenue is a much more difficult pathway to achieve reprieve.

Concerning the topic of bias toward sex and gender may be observed in early legislation. At the turn of the 18th century several states legislated against teaching women to read, own property or vote. During the social conflict of the 60’s considerable advances were experienced by women, nevertheless todays females earns approximately eighty-one per cent on the dollar in comparison of the male counterpart similarly situated in the workforce (BLS, 2013). In 2017 Congress proposed H.R. 1628, Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 (BCRA) that could severely undermine current conduits for women’s health care. The U.S. Senate concurrent legislation proposal was rated equally devastating (NYT, June 26, 2017). These proposals could severely cripple health care access through funding cuts in proposed health care bills and future budgets in areas such as Planned Parenthood reimbursements and Medicaid. The poor, elderly, and the minorities would realize the negative impacts (H.R. 1628, BCRA, 2017; NYT, June 26, 2017).

The courts had to intervene in personal partnerships by providing an avenue for relationships between adults to take its natural course. The fact is “We are sex, we do gender”. Has the latter crossed boundaries that now resonates with American society regardless of economic, social, gender, or ethnic status? Then is don’t ask, don’t tell now eliminated from military command consideration? The Department of Defense Directive promulgated by the Clinton Administration (1994) remained in tack until 2011. The medical fitness for duty directive prohibited questioning of military personnel regarding sexual preference. The directive also prohibited military personnel from disclosing the information. Prior to this approach being gay/lesbian could be grounds for dismissal from the military, regardless of a sterling military record. This begs the question, had sexual preference prevented a person from being a good Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airman. Perhaps the lack of knowledge creates barriers as opposed to ability. The debate remains with the courts regarding Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender fitness for duty (Miller and Cray, 2013). The issue was further complicated by a recent tweet of the Current U.S. President denying commitment to Transgender military personnel (Personal Communication by The President of U.S., July 26-27, 2017). Perhaps the barrier may have been developed through failing to understand that a person may have been born that way (Dastagir, 2017).

According to Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote (2001), unlike European counterparts, America has placed its dissatisfaction with minorities squarely in the political and racially motivated arena limiting the power of the disadvantaged. Heterogeneous traits are used to separate members of American society rather than to celebrate the differences. Doing so provides an avenue of control without accountability of purpose by the powerful and privileged class.