Progressive's Common Goal

At the turn of the twentieth century, conflict between classes, sexes, and immigrant groups created an environment of desire for political and social change.  Articles written by Maureen A. Flanagan and Shelton Stromquist detail the importance of women and working class groups respectively, on the impact of political thought and the birth of the Progressive movement in America.  Though both authors believe that one demographic had the profound influence in their common urban settings, I believe that both women and the working class had not only similar impacts, but similar goals in contributing to the rise of progressivism. 

Maureen Flanagan points out the different goals for reform between the men and women of the Chicago City Clubs.¹ Sanitation, education, and myriad other municipal systems concerned both men and women at the time, but “…when the members of the Woman's City Club confronted these problems, they came to a vision of a good city and specific proposals of how best to provide for the welfare of its residents that were very different from those of their male counterparts in the City Club.”² Women angled for more governmental contributions and standards. They voiced these views and played a large part in behind the scenes politics, but were relegated to the periphery and seen as secondary citizen due to their inability to vote until 1920. 

Similarly, Shelton Stomquist details the “new” and “old” immigrant classes in Cleveland in his article about the Progressive movement.³  Able to create headlines and pressure the direction of politics through strikes and sometimes violence, the immigrant working class stood as a huge proponent for reform in many municipal systems.⁴  One observation made by Stromquist, “ These epidsodes, often brief but intense and frequently centered around streetcar strikes, had an impact on local party alignments and the programmatic direction of reform.”⁵  However, again similar to women, “…political initiative most often lay in the hands of others.”⁶ 

Both groups impacted the progressive movement by influencing local politics despite their perceived limited political power.  Middle to upper class men aimed to protect business interests and “private enterprise”.⁷  Women and the immigrant working class, evident in urban Chicago and Cleveland, strove for, as L.B. Tuckerman stated, “better hospital facilities, and more adequate health services, labor representation on the police board, public ownership of utilities and an improved school system”.⁸  The emphasis on public ownership and government responsibility were goals common to both women’s politics and the immigrant working class.  Despite the difference in gender, both groups define progressive thought and its rise to the political forefront during the early 1900’s and widely effecting the election of 1912. 

¹Maureen A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review,  94, no. 4 (Oct., 1990), 1032-1050. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2163477  (accessed Feb 15, 2012)

²Ibid.

³Shelton Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,”  Journal of Urban History 23, no. 2 (1/31/1997). http://juh.sagepub.com/content/23/2/192.full.pdf   (accessed Feb 15, 2012.)

⁴Ibid, 204.

⁵Ibid.

⁶Ibid.

⁷ Maureen A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review,  94, no. 4 (Oct., 1990), 1037. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2163477  (accessed Feb 15, 2012)

⁸ Shelton Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era,”  Journal of Urban History 23, no. 2 (1/31/1997), 198. http://juh.sagepub.com/content/23/2/192.full.pdf   (accessed Feb 15, 2012.)

Thomas Nast February 8, 1879

Thomas Nast’s February 8, 1879 cartoon entitled “Every Dog (no distinction of color) Has His Day” published in Harper’s Weekly, depicts discrimination of Chinese immigrants.  In the cartoon, a Chinese immigrant reads signs posted on the wall with anti-Chinese statements.  A Native American looks over the Chinese man’s shoulder and there is a caption, “Pale face ‘fraid you crowd him out as he did me”.  An African American man reclines in the corner of the cartoon with a smiling face, the words “My day is coming” written on the wall beside him.  This cartoon was drawn during a depression that began in the mid 1870’s.¹  America focused on minority groups and Chinese immigrants specifically, as a group that would snatch American jobs from Americans. Finding a scapegoat in the Chinese immigrants, California went so far as to pass a law banning the employment of Chinese workers and forcing their relocation outside city limits.  Eventually, the U.S. circuit court would rule that law unconstitutional, but this does explain the extent of fear and blame attributed to the Chinese immigrant.² Thomas Nast’s dislike for the Irish can also be found in this cartoon.  The anti-Chinese postings on the wall are signed by “Kearney (a real American)” and “Pat. Irish. Esq.”.  Stating “foreigners not wanted” expresses the hypocritical tone of the cartoon, since all Americas came from an immigrant past and the Irish suffered, along with other groups, under discrimination and hatred.  The Ku Klux Klan is also represented in the cartoon, by a small posting on the wall, almost being covered up by the anti-Chinese posting, representing an emphasis on Chinese immigration eclipsing the anti-African American stance.  Groups that were once divided in America banned together in joint racism against the Native Americans, Chinese and African Americans, conveniently forgetting their own struggles against bigotry.  Henry George, an American writer during the late nineteenth century, offered the explanation, “the population of this country has been drawn from many different sources; but hitherto, with but one exception these accessions have been of the same race, and though widely differing in language, customs, and national characteristics, have been capable of being welded into a homogenous people.”³  This cartoon seems to represent the idea that white men could argue and disagree about most politics but could unite in discrimination, despite the obvious hypocrisy.  The Native American and the African Americans’ presence in the cartoon serve to point to other races that were targeted by white Americans and immigrants alike.  Like passing the torch to the next group for persecution, the Native American is encouraging the Chinese man’s ire.  The African American appears to be relieved that the spotlight is not on him anymore and in a prophecy even Nast could not have foreseen, states that his day will come, which would occur in the Civil rights movement of the 1960’s. This cartoon stands as a lasting reminder that issues like immigration, racism, discrimination and who qualifies as a ‘real’ American are not new issues, and remain in American society today.

¹Lucy Salyer. Laws Harsh as Tigers.  (North Carolina, The University of North Carolina Press) 1995, 9.

²Lisa Sanderson. March 16, 2009. “The Financial Crisis of the 1870’s The Long Depression”. www.suite101.com, retrieved February 11, 2012, [from] http://lisa-sanderson.suite101.com/the-financial-crisis-of-the-1870s-a102773.

³Philip S. Foner and Daniel Rosenberg, ed. Racism, Dissent, and Asian Americans from 1850 to Present. (Westport Connecticut,  Greenwood Press 1993), 86.

Rights!

In 1789 when the most progressive, radical and unprecedented “rights” endowing document in Europe was penned, I did not have the right to vote, own property freely, or to form a political group. I was not given an adequate education. I was relegated to the private sphere of life, public life being way above my understanding and capabilities. I was defined by my husband’s or father’s status.   The Third Estate did not include me in demanding equal rights, because I am a woman.¹  The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was just that; rights for men.  And not all men; Jews, slaves and even Protestants for a time were prohibited from being complete citizens with the right to participate in the political arena of France.²  Typical of Europe, and most countries, at the time, law, life and religion was decided by men for men of their ilk.  Noble, titled men with similar status and similar issues held all the cards that exploited the considerable remainder of society. 

                Today, in the United States, all people are created equal under the law; equal political and civil rights for everyone has benefitted society greatly.  However, I believe the pendulum is dangerously swinging too far to include too many rights with too many inclusions, exceptions, and caveats to the law.  The Age of Enlightenment led to great intellectual and political thinkers developing ideas of natural law and natural rights.   Diderot, in his definition of natural law states, “that laws should be made for everyone, and not for one person”.³  Once the idea of rights for all were consumed by the people, discontent and desired reform bubbled under the French surface until the perfect storm of bankruptcy, hunger and failed reform erupted into the French Revolution and the rise of the Third Estate.  The popular “common man” appeal to government raged not only in revolutionary France.  In the United States the call of the 99% is being sounded.  People are demanding more rights, less taxes more distribution of wealth.   This is almost identical to the revolutionary period of France, Europe, the Americas and Japan in the eighteenth century.  But today, so many rights exist and where is the line drawn to separate human rights from human entitlements? 

                I believe in the American Bills of Rights. But recently political rights and civil rights are not enough to quell discontent.  Social rights are the new cry of many Americans trying to equalize society.  America is a capitalist society, driven by the desire to improve and be rewarded accordingly.  To continue to augment civil rights with more and more social rights, will slowly obliterate capitalism.  Some social rights are appropriate, but I believe the issue is where to draw the line. The Achilles heel of implementing rights documents has always been in its application to human beings in real world situations. Who should hold the power to deny someone? What are the criteria set forth and how is it defined? These very questions faced the implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.  Even though this cutting edge document gave new rights to its citizens, it was hugely exclusive.   Since the Revolution era in the eighteenth century, people of all countries have struggled for freedoms and rights and excellent progress has been made in the West. The Middle East currently is erupting demanding the same rights from their governments, even if it means over throwing long standing regimes.   Overall, human rights benefit everyone, but when laws are written and humans are involved in the implementation of rights, exceptions and inequality still appear so that every human does not have an equal experience. 

¹Lynn Hunt ed. The French Revolution and Human Rights A Brief Documented History. (Boston, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1996), 18-19.

²Ibid.

³ Dennis Diderot, Natural Law (1755), in French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 37.