In the 20th century. In accordance with this paradigm, the formation of American national identity was supposed to follow the formula of “fusion”, “mixing” of all peoples, and both their cultural and biological mixing were assumed. The formulated theoretical concept was of an apologetic nature in the sense that it denied the existence of any conflicts in society - social or ethnic. According to the American researcher A. Mann, “the very phrase ‘melting pot’ has become a national symbol of this century.”
The dominance of this thought in the American public is closely related to the ideals of the culture's vision of a truly free democratic society, where people would strive to live among racially and ethnically mixed neighbors. The "melting pot" concept can be contrasted with the politics of multiculturalism.
Origin of the term
The term itself arose from the title of a play by the British journalist and playwright I. Zanguill, who often came to the United States and knew the life of this country. The essence of the play “The Melting Pot” was that in the United States of America there was a fusion of different peoples and their national cultures, as a result of which a single American nation was formed. The main character of the play, a young immigrant from the Russian Empire, David Quixano, looking from a ship that arrived in the port of New York, exclaimed: “America is the greatest melting pot created by God, in which all the peoples of Europe are fused... Germans and French, Irish and English, Jews and Russians - all into this crucible. This is how God creates a nation of Americans.”
History of concept development
The Melting Pot in 18th-Century Literature
Before the term “melting pot” appeared, the phenomenon of mixing peoples from different countries into one common culture took place in literature back in the 18th century. The description of the American people as a single nation can be traced from poets, publicists and writers. For example, in his brochure “Common Sense” Thomas Paine, an Anglo-American writer and philosopher, describing Americans, noted:
America's homeland is Europe, not England. The New World became a refuge for persecuted adherents of civil and religious freedom from all parts Europe
Original text (English)
Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world has been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe.
One of the first authors to use the “melting pot” metaphor to describe American society was the French aristocrat John Crevecoeur, who, in his Letters from an American Farmer, discussing who an American is, wrote: “Here representatives of all nationalities are mixed into a new race people whose descendants will one day change the world."
Scientific works of the 19th century
The progressive concept of the “melting pot” found its supporters in the 19th century. Thus, it was supported by one of the outstanding intellectuals of the time, an American of English origin, Ralph Emerson.
Great popularity at the end of the 19th century. received a four-volume publication by Theodore Roosevelt (then a historian and writer) entitled “The Conquest of the West,” where the author, describing the colonization of the West, praised American power, which he saw in unity. From his conclusion, "American individualism was tempered by common sense and the power of association."
A fundamental role in the study of the concept is occupied by the work of historian Frederick Jackson Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” where he pays attention to the geographical factor. In his report, he uses the metaphor of a "melting pot" to describe the process of Americanization. According to his theory, "in the crucible of the frontier the immigrants were Americanized, liberated, and mixed into an American race distinct from the Anglo-Saxon, both in national and other characteristics." Turner did not recognize that American social institutions were borrowed from Europe and argued that they arose as a result of the expanding geography of American political and economic influence. "The availability of free land and the continuous advance of settlements to the West explain the development of America." In the beginning, the "border" was the Atlantic coast; it was the “border” of Europe. The movement of the “border” to the West meant a gradual removal from European influence and a steady increase in movement along the American path.
Urban melting pot
At the end of the 19th century. The melting pot theory was replaced by another, called the “urban melting pot”. This is primarily due to the process of urbanization. The role of cities in the process of Americanization has increased markedly. This was due to the fact that cities had the most favorable conditions for the assimilation of newly arrived immigrants. On the other hand, the accumulation of immigrants became the reason for their separation into special ethnic groups and the creation of ethnic organizations. Linguistic assimilation played an important role in this process, since all associations switched to English, and were essentially American associations of different nationalities; this only accelerated the process of Americanization. As a theory, the "urban melting pot" was studied by Robert Park. As John Higham wrote, “If we look carefully at Park's conceptual scheme, we find an improved version of the classic American ideal of assimilation, carried on by some radicals who included both black Americans and immigrants in this process.” Paying special attention to the process of assimilation in cities, he wrote that “... Every society, every nation and every civilization is a seething cauldron and thus contributes to the fusion of races, as a result of which new races and new cultures inevitably arise.”
Triple melting pot
In the 20th century The dominant opinion was about the successful development of the American nation according to the “melting pot” formula, the “mixing” of representatives of various nations, despite their ethnic and cultural differences. Another adjustment to the “melting pot” theory was made by R. Kennedy in his work “Single or Triple Melting Pot.” While studying interethnic marriages in New Haven, she concluded that religious preferences played a decisive role in marriage. Kennedy identified the five largest national groups, which she divided on a religious basis into three main systems: Judaism (Jews), Protestantism (British, Germans and Scandinavians) and Catholicism (Irish, Italians and Poles). It was within these systems that marriages were concluded with representatives of the same or different, but not beyond the framework of the same religious system, ethnic groups. “We should note,” she wrote, “that while strict endogamy is being lost, religious endogamy is being established and in the future will take place along religious lines rather than along national lines, as was the case in the past. If this is true, then the traditional “single melting pot must” give way to a new concept, which we define as the “triple melting pot.” The theory of American assimilation will take its place as a real reflection of what is happening to the various national groups in the United States."
Criticism
Melting Pot or Salad Bowl
The melting pot model has been challenged by proponents of cultural pluralism. The main object of criticism was discrimination against minorities, which primarily included representatives of the black and yellow races. As noted in American literature, if from the point of view of integration and the "melting pot" tendency, minorities are secondary and must ultimately disappear, then pluralism, on the contrary, defined minorities as central to the structure of society.
The concept of cultural pluralism received theoretical formulation in the 20s of the 20th century in the work of the American philosopher G. Cullen “Democracy versus the Melting Pot.” Cullen wrote: “People can change their clothes, politics, wives, religion, philosophy to a greater or lesser extent. But they cannot change their grandfathers: Jews, Poles, Anglo-Saxons, in order to stop being Jews, Poles, Anglo-Saxons...”
The Washington Immigration Research Center has published another study of the work of a gigantic social mechanism called the “melting pot”, which supposedly turns foreigners arriving in the United States into full-fledged and full-fledged Americans.
According to this report, which is based on data from the Census Bureau, native-born Americans are considered everyone born in the United States, and immigrants are all foreigners living in the country legally and illegally and their American-born children under the age of 18 years.
The report found that immigrants today make up more than half of all agricultural workers; 41% of taxi drivers and 48% of cleaners and cleaners, but
at the same time, about a third of programmers and 27% of doctors. Based on the data, the report's authors say immigrants adjust to their new lives as they settle in, but lag far behind native-born Americans in areas such as earnings, owning homes and health insurance. 43% of immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least 20 years are on welfare, that is, on the neck of the state, and they are almost twice as many as native-born Americans, and almost 50% more than new immigrants. Thus, the report concludes, the problem of complete assimilation is more difficult than overcoming the barrier of language and culture.
The expression “melting pot” appeared in the United States at the end of the 18th century as a metaphor for the transition of a heterogeneous society to a homogeneous one, that is, the assimilation of ethnic groups who arrived for permanent residence in another ethnic environment. Later it was supplemented by the scientific terms “immigration” and “multiculture”, and in everyday life by the words “mosaic” and even “salad bowl”. The expression “melting pot” has been firmly established since the beginning of the 20th century, when immigrant steamships stormed American ports and the British Jew Israel Zangwill wrote and staged a play with that title in New York. It was an immigrant adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy, where Romeo Montague became a Jewish immigrant from Tsarist Russia, and Juliet Capulet became a Christian woman named Vera, also an immigrant from Russia. The “melting pot” regularly melted “multicultural” immigration into Americans, whose children became native Yankees, creating America as a state and a nation. Now this is not at all the case, and “multultulti” means the right of ethnic groups to preserve their language, their culture and their traditions, and taxes and the obligation to sit on juries in courts have become a tribute to the country that accepted them.
The Immigration Research Center's report runs to 96 pages and comes in the midst of an election battle in which both rivals, based on their political convictions, are courting the multimillion-dollar community of illegal immigrants, counting on the votes of their legal compatriots who have already received American citizenship. Basically we are talking about the possibility of the younger, law-abiding and more or less educated part of illegal immigrants to temporarily legalize. Fundamentally, we are talking about a possible increase in the number of legal immigrants. The author of the report and head of the center, Stephen Camarota, believes that the pros and cons of this problem are more likely not quantitative, but qualitative.
“We know that these people are mostly poor,” Camarota told the Washington Times, “and don’t say that everything is going well for them, as many people want to hear. There is progress, and individual measures are strengthening it, but in general the situation is not at all what we would like, especially for those who are least educated. They are far behind the native [Americans], although they have lived here for twenty years.” Like other experts on mass immigration, Stephen Camarota is not talking about skilled painters from Moldova or maids from Namibia, but about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America - the backbone of the cheap labor force in our fields and vegetable gardens.
This prospect is not enthusiastic among most voters, but most of our politicians support increased legal immigration. As a senator, Barack Obama supported bills that proposed increasing the flow of immigrants to hundreds of thousands per month, and as president, he did not change his position. “Our farms need to be given the legal ability to hire workers they can rely on and give those workers a path to legal status,” Obama said last year in El Paso, Texas, near the Mexican border. “And our laws should respect observant families and reunite them rather than tear them apart.” Republican Mitt Romney, Obama's apparent challenger in the November election, has also called for legalization of immigrants, although only for high-tech students and family members of green card holders. “Our immigration system should help strong families, not tear them apart,” Romney said in June at a meeting with members of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Florida. “Our country benefits when mothers, fathers and their children live together under one roof.”
According to Camarota's report, demographics play a role here: in Massachusetts, for example, the annual income of a native American family averages $89,000, while immigrant families average $66,000. In Virginia, the ratio is $93,000 and $80,000. On the one hand, immigrant families in Virginia pay more in income taxes, but on the other hand, these families benefit more from welfare. In terms of the origin of immigrants, the report found that Mexicans make up 57% of welfare recipients for poverty, while the British only 6%, which is not surprising given the number of both in America. Native Americans account for 23% of such assistance.
Griboyedov was in vain in asserting that grief comes from the mind. Today, 25% of US public high school students speak a language other than English at home.
A report from the Stephen Camarota Center noted that immigrants with bachelor's degrees or higher who have lived in the United States for 20 years do slightly better than native-born Americans. Immigrants with a high school education fare worse than native-born Yankees, no matter how long they stay in the United States.
According to experts, the new wave of immigrants are also assimilating in a new way. Professor George Borges of Harvard University says that the second generation of Americans - the children of current immigrants - will still be 10% behind native Americans in living standards by 2030. In their report “Assimilation Tomorrow,” California State University demographers Dowell Myers and John Pitkin argue that by 2030, by 2030, immigrants from the 1990s will be living happily ever after, with 71 percent of them becoming American citizens. The recent recession has made their path to the top more difficult, but has not derailed the path to assimilation that previous generations of immigrants followed. However, according to Myers and Pitkin, legalizing the 11 million foreigners who are now illegally in the United States will not help, but will only harm the process of assimilation - the work of America's giant "melting pot". Today, the work of this boiler is no longer reflected in Israel Zangwill’s play “Melting Pot” based on Shakespeare’s tragedy, but rather in the grotesque performance “Russian Transport” based on the play by Erica Schaeffer, which since winter of this year has been playing on the stage of the Acorn Theater on 42nd Street near Broadway.
The law is harsh, says Roman wisdom, but it is the law. US federal law requires immigration authorities to deny visas to foreigners who may become potential immigrants but are unable to support themselves, thereby increasing the number of government aid recipients. Last week, a group of Republican senators sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (which includes Immigration Services) and the State Department asking for clarification on why they do not consider whether applicants will qualify for 80 types of welfare benefits when reviewing visa applications. The senators have not yet received a response to their letter.
“Melting pot” is not originally an American self-image. Americans considered themselves Europeans and Christians. The concept of "melting pot" was coined as a term from the play "The Melting Pot" (1908) by Russian Jewish immigrant Israel Zangville, who adapted Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to the New York City setting. In the play, immigrant David Quijano, a Russian Jew, falls in love with Vera, a Russian immigrant who is, however, a Christian. Vera is an idealist and worker, David is a composer trying to create an “American symphony” glorifying his new homeland. Together they overcome the hostilities of the old world that could tear them apart. With Faith, watching the sunset gilding the Statue of Liberty, David Quijano makes a prophecy speech: “These are the lights of God around his smelter. This is the Great Melting Pot! ... Here all of them (immigrants) will unite and build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God.”
The ideology of modernity in the West is becoming “multiculturalism” (the theory of “vinaigrette” or “salad cup”, which implies not the mixing of nations of cultures in a melting pot, but their mixing). The essence of the policy of multiculturalism lies in preserving the cultural characteristics of different ethnic groups. If municipal and national authorities finance educational institutions and cultural institutions, where people from other countries and their descendants can learn their native language and study the history and culture of their countries, if the wearing of folk costumes is encouraged, etc. (Germany) - this is multiculturalism. If the official policy is not specifically aimed at rapid assimilation, and is also not aimed at maintaining ethnic identity, but in general does not particularly interfere with it, it is a “melting pot”. It is the latter policy at the state level that we observe in the modern United States.
In 2006, the US population reached the 300 million mark. According to the Census Bureau, it is predicted that from 1995 to 2050 the US population will grow from 263 to 394-420 million people, but immigration to the US will remain stable at 820 thousand people. per year. Immigrants will account for 82% of the growth. Of the new 142 million, 67 million will be immigrants themselves, another 47 million will be their children, and 3 million will be their grandchildren. Population growth will be driven almost entirely by people of color.
By 2050, Latinos will make up a quarter of the total US population and will outnumber blacks, Indians and Asians combined. The number of Hispanic Americans will grow from the current 40 million to approximately 103 million. Such significant growth figures will be ensured by high birth rates (the corresponding figures for Latin Americans are 2 times higher than for their white fellow citizens) and mass immigration from Latin America, primarily from neighboring Mexico.
The share of Asians in the population, which is 3.5% today, will rise to 8.2% in 2050. In absolute terms, the number of Asians will triple: from 11 million in 2000 to 33 million in 2050, which will be achieved through mass immigration, mainly from China and India. The number of black Americans will almost double - from 36 million to 61 million people, but their share in the total population will increase slightly - from the current 12.7% to 14.6%.
By 2050, the white population of the United States will be in the minority due to an influx of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, a new study reports. Now every eighth resident of the United States is an immigrant. Projections for such a dramatic change in the ethnic composition of the population are due to existing trends: the white population of the United States is aging and exhibits low rates of natural increase, while the share of Hispanics, blacks and Asians is increasing due to high birth rates and immigration. It is worth listening to the opinion of some experts who do not rule out that a change in the ethnic mosaic in CIIIA could contribute to the disintegration of the United States into several states, although the likelihood of this is minimal.
The predicted changes in the face of the country reflect the situation that has already developed in California - whites ceased to be the majority there several years ago. According to the 2005 Census, whites currently make up 43% of California's population, Hispanics make up 36%, and Asians and Pacific Islanders make up 13%.
States with a predominant non-white population (Majority-minority state) have emerged - a group of second-order administrative units (states) in the United States in which the non-white population predominates (accounting for 67% of the country as a whole according to 2006 data), and a variety of racial and ethnolinguistic groups of the so-called colored population - African Americans (blacks), Latin Americans (especially Mexicans), Asians, Indians, people of mixed origin (mestizo, mulatto, etc.) Currently there are 4 such states in the country (California, New Mexico , Texas, Hawaii), as well as the territory of the District of Columbia - Washington). However, in all of them, with the exception of the District of Columbia, the white English-speaking population still retains a relative majority (plurality), since the non-white population is quite heterogeneous in its composition. In addition, non-white populations predominate in a number of US overseas dependencies: Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa.
You should be wary of such statistics and take into account American realities: segregation of housing, education, etc. for a detailed picture. Thus, within states with a predominantly non-white population there are a large number of counties, cities and neighborhoods with a predominantly white population. However, outside of this category of states, although the population is generally white, there are significant areas of concentration of people of color, especially in cities. So, in general, in the population of million-plus cities in the United States, white people make up only 35% of the population. US Census data and current US Census Bureau statistics (2000-2010) are important. The importance of information about the states and territories with a predominant non-white population has historically been of great importance for the United States since its inception, since the overt or hidden confrontation between the white and non-white population in cultural, linguistic and religious terms reached its apogee here compared to other colonial territories of the Western Hemisphere . The persistence of a colonial mentality and powerful linguistic assimilation have influenced modern US demographic statistics, which focus primarily on race rather than people or languages. The modern market and marketing also in many ways actively support such a somewhat artificial division as a convenient way of market segmentation.
States with a predominantly non-white population tend to have a very different linguistic, religious and political picture from the country as a whole (especially the states of the South-West), where Spanish is widely spoken, Catholicism and atheism are more widespread, rather than sectarian or semi-sectarian Protestantism , and voters disillusioned with modern government tend to favor independent candidates rather than support either of the country's two main parties (Democrats or Republicans). Also in these states there are a number of social problems associated with illegal immigration (the number of illegal immigrants, mainly Mexicans, according to some estimates, reaches 12 million people), high birth rates of the non-white population, and relatively low income levels.
Despite the fact that economic and social differences between black and white Americans are gradually disappearing, a different situation is emerging in the field of interracial marriages. In areas such as religion and place of residence, significant rapprochement has not occurred. Even today, the United States remains a highly segregated society in many ways. 90% of Americans pray primarily with members of their own race or ethnicity. In a typical American city, to ensure equal distribution of white and black residents, 64% of black residents must be relocated to other areas. Even in public schools, relationships between American teenagers are quite segregated: the average American student has 0.7 friends of a different race. However, according to the author, the most interesting indicator of the segregation of American society is interracial marriages. To analyze interracial marriage, Frayer uses statistics from 1880 to 2000. As Frayer shows, even today interracial marriages are extremely rare in the United States. Only 1% of whites, 5% of blacks and 14% of Asians decide to marry a person of a different race. Until 1967, when the US Supreme Court ruled that such bans were unconstitutional, 16 of the 50 US states still had such laws banning interracial marriage. Another interesting fact: in 1987, 35 US states prohibited white families from adopting black orphans. This ban was only eradicated in 1996, when a law was passed prohibiting such practices.
According to statistics, in 1880, marriages between whites, on the one hand, and blacks or Asians, on the other, accounted for only 0.1% of all marriages entered into by whites. Initially, white citizens preferred marriages with blacks rather than with Asians, although the trend later reversed. From 1880 to 1980s the proportion of marriages between white men and black women was less than 0.1% of the total. Since 1980, this rate began to increase and reached 0.2% by 2000. The number of marriages between black men and white women increased from 0.10% in 1970 to 0.45% in 2000. Currently, about 6% of marriages entered into African Americans contract with white women. About 2.9% of marriages of African-American women are with white Americans. Marriages between white men and Asian women were rare until 1960. However, starting in 1960, the number began to rise and by 2000 had increased tenfold, becoming the most common model of interracial marriage in the United States.
The most common type of interracial marriage in the United States is between a white man and an Asian woman. Such unions account for 20% of marriages involving Asian women in the US and 35% of marriages involving US-born Asian women. The second and most common type of interracial marriage is between a black man and a white woman. About 6% of African American marriages are of this type. In turn, the US Census Bureau reported that in 2005 in the United States there were 422 thousand marriages in which the spouses belonged to different races (black and white). The increase in interracial marriage prompted the Census Bureau to change the questionnaire that Americans filled out during the 2000 national census. Typically, US residents were required to indicate their race; in 2000, a “multiracial” answer option was added for the first time. At that time, 2.4% of the US population (6.8 million people) said they were of mixed racial origin. Among young Americans (under 18 years of age), 4.2% were of “multiracial” origin, among older generations - 1.9%. If in 1970 only one out of every 100 children born in the United States was of multiracial origin, then in 2000 the figure was one out of every 19. In some states (for example, California) this figure is even higher - one in 10. The largest number of Americans of mixed descent in 2000 lived in the state of Hawaii (more than 24.5% of the state's population were people whose parents belonged to different races), the smallest - in Mississippi, West Virginia, Maine, Alabama and South Carolina (less than 1%) .
According to sociologists at Stanford University, in 2005, of the 59 million married couples existing in the United States, 7% consisted of spouses of different skin colors. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that interracial families are more likely to break up than those in which both spouses are of the same race. The risk of divorce for a “multi-colored” family that has existed for 10 years is 41%, for a “monoracial” couple - 31%. The most famous are interracial families formed by celebrities. For example, director and actor Woody Allen is married to an Asian woman, actor Robert De Niro is married to an African-American woman, former US Secretary of Defense (in the Bill Clinton Administration) William Cohen is married to a black woman. In turn, US President Barack Obama, golfer Tiger Woods, and actors Keene Reeves and Halle Bury had “multi-colored” parents.
It should be noted that the Bush administration has made the test more difficult for immigrants seeking US citizenship. Everyday racism has not been completely eradicated. There are various marginal neo-fascist organizations (which, as is known, also prepared attempts on Obama’s life). The success of many years of advocacy efforts aimed at overcoming the consequences of racial discrimination is obvious. It’s not for nothing that Hollywood has been circulating black-and-white partners for so many years, it’s not for nothing that self-censorship (political correctness) is being cultivated, and it’s not for nothing that on the eve of elections the media remember African-Americans who at one time became the first in one field or another. At the same time, we should not forget how in the 2000s. Intercommunal clashes occurred, paralyzing Miami and Los Angeles for several days. Troops had to be sent into the largest cities of America to stop the mutual pogroms of Koreans and blacks, Latin Americans and whites, and the outrages of ethnic criminal gangs.
There is no consensus among experts about exactly how a change in the ethnic composition of the American population will affect the United States and the socio-political system in the country. Some American researchers believe that the ethnic factor is secondary compared to the prospects for a fundamental change in the economic model that underlies the American economy. In the United States, the upper political establishment is dominated by whites. They make up almost 100% of the local elite. Today, ethnic minorities have almost no tools to change the current situation. It is possible that they will not appear in the future. Ethnic minorities do not have their own legal political parties and movements. And the American political system is structured in such a way that an attempt to legalize its own power will lead it into the fold of one of the two existing parties, Democratic or Republican. It is impossible to predict what the role of ethnic minorities will be in the US economy, since we do not know on what principles the new US economic model will be based.
A completely different picture is painted by Anatoly Utkin, director of the Center for International Studies of the Institute of the USA and Canada (ISKRAN). In his opinion, as a result of changes in the ethnic composition of the population, the United States itself will radically change. America's internal psychology and culture will change. The United States will become part of Hispanidad, the greater Spanish-speaking world. Bilingualism will become the norm: Cervantes will be studied in schools in the same way as Shakespeare is studied today. Moreover, what is important is not how many “Spaniards” and blacks there will be in the USA, but that they will be 30-40 years old, young and full of energy, while a significant part of whites will be retirees who are only interested in vacationing in Florida. The changes will be colossal. The United States will elect a Hispanic president. The military elite will be “Latin” and “black.” Residents will go to Mexican-style churches. A one-party system may be established in the country, the separation of powers will disappear, and military coups will become the political norm. It is worth listening to the opinion of some experts who do not rule out that a change in the ethnic mosaic in CIIIA could contribute to the disintegration of the United States into several states, although the likelihood of this is minimal.
A. Utkin's opinion is an extreme point of view. It still seems that the evolutionary path of development of the United States will take place, without radical social and political upheavals. Complete mixing of races and ethnicities will not happen, assimilation will stop, multiculturalism will win. In the coming decades, in racial and ethnic terms, American society is likely to gradually transform into a Latin American society with a large admixture of Asian elements.
One of the most famous supporters of “black Muslims” is the American director, screenwriter and actor Spike Lee (born 1956). His real name is Sheldon Jackson (he chose the pseudonym Spike, that is, “spike”) at school. He is the undoubted leader of black film culture of the 80s and 90s. Dedicated to the Million Black Man March initiated by Muslim leader Farrakhan, Get on That Bus (1996) is far from the aggressive thrust of Malcolm X.
What positive and negative consequences of the “meeting of worlds” manifested themselves in the history of Latin America in the 19th century?
Meeting of worlds. When the Great Geographical Discoveries brought Europeans to the New World 500 years ago, there was a direct “collision” of two worlds - the world of the Indians with the world of the Spaniards and Portuguese. Relations could not be friendly - the gap in the level of development was too great, and besides, the conquistadors, as you remember, were guided by the motto: “God, glory and gold!” A new society was already emerging in Europe with its spirit of entrepreneurship, the desire for personal gain, personal success, and the desire to subordinate the entire world around it to its interests. And this Europe came into contact with a continent where traditional societies existed, where people lived and worked as their ancestors lived and worked - trying to adapt to the environment, submitting to communal orders.
Colonization, during which the centers of ancient Indian culture were destroyed, continued until the middle of the 17th century. And yet, faced with the world of the Indians, the Spanish and Portuguese conquest was forced to come to terms with the preservation of some elements of their culture, communal orders, and the Indians ultimately adopted some features of Spanish culture and Christianity. The meeting of such different cultures marked the beginning of the emergence of Latin American society.
Creation of a colonial system of government. By the middle of the 17th century. The colonization of Latin America was completed and a colonial system of government began to be created. Apart from Brazil, which was captured by the Portuguese, all of South America belonged to Spain. The lands captured in the New World were declared the property of the Spanish crown. The system of colonial administration was primarily supposed to protect the property rights of the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs; the colonies were governed by Spanish and Portuguese officials. Cities had local governments that dealt with judicial matters and issues of improvement. At the same time, the colonialists did not destroy the Indian community and left the caciques, elders whose power was hereditary, at the head of the Indian villages. Communal orders were used by the Spaniards to govern the colonies and organize economic life. The community provided the colonialists with collective corvee labor.
To suppress possible competition from the colonies, the authorities interfered with the development of local industry and the construction of manufactories. In the colonies of the New World, it was allowed to produce only what was not grown in Spain and Portugal: tobacco, coffee, sugar cane, maize.
In pursuit of profit, the conquerors spared no one and turned the Indians into free labor - slaves. Hundreds and thousands of them died in mines and plantations from overwork, hunger and disease. Refusal to work was brutally suppressed, Indians were tortured and killed, sparing neither women nor children.
Many of the Indians eventually turned into hereditary debt slaves - peons - attached to the land, and this dependence was inherited by the next generation.
Since the Indians were dying out and there were not enough workers in the mines and plantations, the Spaniards in the 16th-18th centuries. They began to import stronger and more resilient black slaves from Africa to America.
By the beginning of the 19th century. the majority of the Indian population were enslaved peasants, as well as workers in mines, factories, craft workshops, loaders and domestic servants.
Only in some hard-to-reach areas remained tribes that did not recognize the power of the colonialists and resisted them. In some regions, free peasant communities remained.
Latin American Society. Latin American society finally emerged in the 19th century. Its composition has changed over the years. The privileged elite were white natives of the metropolis: representatives of the family nobility and wealthy merchants. They occupied almost all the highest administrative, military and church positions, and owned large estates and mines.
An indigenous white population also appeared - the Creoles - descendants of the Spaniards and Portuguese, born in the colonies. Among them were large and small landowners, entrepreneurs - owners of mines and factories, administration officials, officers, priests, and artisans. Formally, Creoles had the same rights as natives of the metropolis, but they were not allowed to senior positions in the colonial administration system.
As a result of mixed marriages in the colonies, mestizos (descendants of a mixed marriage of whites and Indians), mulattoes (descendants of a mixed marriage of whites and blacks) and sambo (descendants of a mixed marriage of Indians and blacks) appeared in the colonies. All of them did not have civil rights, could not hold positions of officials and officers, or participate in elections of local authorities. All these people were gradually united by a common language and one religion.
The time of the liberators. The history of Latin America contains many pages devoted to wars against colonial dependence. In 1791, a revolt of black slaves began on the island of Haiti. The alarm of the revolution in France echoed powerfully in this French colony (the French name for the colony of Saint-Domingue). After a long struggle in the western part of the island, the first independent state of Latin America, Haiti, was proclaimed in 1804.
Simon Bolivar
The “time of liberators” was the 19th century. By the beginning of the century, the Spanish colonial empire in America had a territory of more than 10 million square meters. km and extended from San Francisco to Cape Horn.
At the beginning of the 19th century. In the Spanish colonies of America, a patriotic movement of Creoles arose, thinking about secession from Spain. Secret organizations were created in the colonies, documents of the Great French Revolution were illegally published and distributed.
In 1811, Venezuela declared itself an independent republic. Among the members of the Patriotic Society, which led the liberation movement, the young officer Simon Bolivar stood out. A widely educated man, a brilliant speaker and publicist, he also possessed extraordinary talent as a commander.
At first, the leaders of the liberation movement saw their task only in expelling the colonialists and did not seek to change the existing order. However, the blacks and Indians did not support them, and then Bolivar issued decrees in which he promised to grant freedom to the slaves who joined the revolutionary army, and land to the peasants.
Bolivar understood that Venezuela could not defend its independence alone; to fight, it was necessary to have allies. He led his army to help the neighboring country - New Granada. It was a legendary crossing of the Andes. Every day it became colder. The rain turned to snow. The icy wind knocked me off my feet. Mountain falls and trees torn out by the storm blocked the way. All the horses died, the soldiers lost consciousness from lack of oxygen, and fell into the abyss. Bolivar, in a tattered general's uniform, led the vanguard, inspiring the soldiers with his courage. Of the 3,400 soldiers, only 1,500 came down from the mountains.
The Spanish troops were defeated. Venezuela and New Granada united in 1819 into a single state - Gran Colombia.
In 1824, after a long war of liberation, Mexico became an independent republic.
“Independence is the only good we have achieved...” In an effort to strengthen the independence of the young Latin American states, Bolivar advocated their unification into a confederation. He constantly fought for the creation of a democratic republic, where the color of the skin of its citizens would not affect their position in society. But it was not possible to unite the new independent states that had a common language and religion. Bolivar's power was overthrown in Peru and Bolivia, then Venezuela and Ecuador separated from Colombia. “Independence,” said Bolivar, “is the only good that we have achieved at the expense of all others.”
Bolivar's army crossing the Andes
Bolívar's influence and popularity declined, and at the beginning of 1830 he resigned. Only many years later his merits received universal recognition. The memory of him is preserved in the name of one of the South American republics - Bolivia.
The revolution in Portugal in 1820 led to a new rise in the independence movement in Brazil. The former colony declared independence and declared itself an empire.
In 1868, a massive uprising for independence began in Cuba. But for many more years the Cuban army had to fight for liberation from colonial dependence. The independent Cuban Republic was proclaimed only in 1895.
Results and significance of the liberation wars. The national liberation movement in Latin America ended in victory. In all independent states, except Brazil, a republican system was established (Brazil became a republic in 1889). But some states that were formed during the war for independence, due to deep internal contradictions and the struggle of various factions, turned out to be fragile and collapsed.
Political independence created more favorable conditions for the development of a capitalist economy and entry into the world market, but the preservation of many customs of traditional society slowed down this process.
In independent states, slavery was gradually abolished, the poll tax and forced labor service of the indigenous population in favor of private individuals, the state and the church were abolished, a parliamentary system was established and constitutions were adopted.
Of no small importance was the destruction of the Inquisition, the class system and the abolition of noble titles.
The national self-awareness of Latin Americans also strengthened; they began to feel that they belonged to a certain nation, which has the right to create an independent state.
A number of scientists believe that the liberation wars had the character of a bourgeois revolution. But there is another point of view that denies such an assessment, since the creation of new republics did not bring new classes to power. The peasants did not receive land, but the owners of the latifundia retained huge estates and political power.
The process of modernization in Latin American countries developed extremely slowly.
Century of the Caudillo. After the war of independence, peace was not established in the political life of the young states. They began to fight against each other to seize more territories. This was accompanied by an intense struggle for the presidency within each individual country. As a rule, power fell into the hands of military or civilian leaders during the Revolutionary War, who seized it by force of arms. Such a leader - a caudillo - relied either on the people or on the landowners.
In Latin American society, as you know, the relationships between people retained the ties characteristic of traditional society. This was expressed in the dominance of clan ties between the patron (master) and the masses subordinate to him. Typically, clan ties are stronger than class ties.
The essence of this phenomenon is that a circle of people rallies around a strong personality, hoping to solve their problems with the help of a patron. In the political struggle, the leader’s personal qualities and his ability to control the crowd, winning their trust, came to the fore. Under these conditions, friendly ties become more important than the law. This relationship is expressed by the principle: “Everything is for friends, and for enemies it is law.”
Often, behind the mask of a “crowd favorite,” ambition and fierce rivalry between individual families were hidden.
In the 19th century Constant coups d'etat, rigged elections and bloody civil wars began.
Slow economic development. Decades of internecine wars had a disastrous effect on the economic condition of the young states. Their economy was focused mainly on the production and export abroad of agricultural products or minerals - copper and silver. However, in the middle of the 19th century. a number of countries are being drawn into the global market.
Chile actively exported silver, copper ore, and saltpeter to Europe. Between 1880 and 1910 The country's industrial production grew by 2% annually.
By the end of the century, more favorable conditions for the development of livestock and agriculture were created in Argentina. The impetus for the development of livestock farming was the creation of freezing plants and an increase in the capacity of the English domestic market. Argentina actively exported frozen meat to European countries, with 2/3 of it being supplied to London.
The abolition of slavery and the influx of immigrants created the conditions for the development of a capitalist economy in Brazil. The main source of income by the beginning of the 20th century. exports of coffee, gold, silver, natural rubber and tropical fruits remained.
Gold and silver were exported from Mexico, and coffee and indigo (a dye) from Colombia. Industrial enterprises and railways under construction ended up in the hands of foreign capital.
According to the level of economic development by the beginning of the 20th century. the countries of the Latin American region looked as follows: the group of the most developed countries consisted of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile; Bolivia, Mexico and Peru were much more backward, where huge masses of landless, enslaved peasantry remained. In fact, the economic system of colonial times, based on the dominance of large landowners, dominated here.
Latin American melting pot. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. in Latin America on a huge area of 20.6 million square meters. km lived 60 million people (in 1820 - 20 million). There were 20 independent states here.
In 18 countries the population spoke Spanish, in Brazil - Portuguese, in Haiti - French.
The 19th century was the time of formation of Latin American nations. They were formed from representatives of different peoples living within the borders of one state. As in the USA, there was a “melting pot” here, in which different races and nations mixed: Indians, blacks, immigrants from Spain and Portugal, from other European countries, and then new immigrants.
Society in Latin American countries was formed under the influence of Spanish and Portuguese traditions; there has always been a hierarchy in the system of relations between people. Everyone had to know their place, their clan, and connect their well-being with the “big” or “small” patron, the caudillo. Hence the tendency towards authoritarian regimes.
A special society has formed in Latin America, different from both European and North American. Decades of bloody internecine wars, dictatorial regimes, mass protest movements that at times developed into revolutions, movements for democratization - all this made the history of Latin Americans in the 19th century tragic.
At the same time, in the most developed countries of Latin America, a process of modernization took place, industry developed, the social structure of society changed, and political and social reforms were carried out. The greatest achievement of the Latin Americans was the abolition of slavery.
The riches of the continent lead to the active penetration of foreign capital into its economy, which gives rise to new contradictions. At the turn of the century, Latin America is emerging from a state of political and economic isolation.
1. Show on the map the colonies of European countries in Latin America. 2. Describe the composition of Latin American society at the beginning of the 19th century. 3. What reasons underlay the liberation wars in the first quarter of the 19th century? 4. Describe Simon Bolivar as a political figure. 5. In your notebook, make a plan for answering the question: “What are the results and significance of the liberation wars?”
1. Discuss with your classmates why such a phenomenon as caudilism developed in Latin America. 2. Compare the economic development of Latin American countries and the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. 3. Discuss with your classmates what were the features of the formation of Latin American nations. 4. Describe the features of Latin American society and the role of the Catholic religion in it, using additional material from the textbook.
Peculiarities of beliefs among Catholics in Latin America
The Catholic religion had a great influence on the formation of nations. Back in the 16th century. The church in Latin American countries set itself the goal of promoting the rapprochement of spiritual culture between the various groups that made up the population of the colonies (Spaniards, blacks, Indians, mestizos). Each group was encouraged to adopt a common faith and customs. In Mexico, for example, back in the 16th century. the cult of the Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, was formed. This is how the cult of a local saint first arose, and then the church spread it throughout the country. Religious holidays and coronations created numerous occasions for the gathering of huge masses of people.
Religious processions, which gathered crowds of worshipers from all over the kingdom in one place, helped strengthen ties between the inhabitants of the country. And gradually the cult of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe united the inhabitants of Mexico: everyone who worshiped this saint was considered to belong to the Mexican nation. In general, the Catholic religion and the Catholic Church played a large role in the lives of Latin Americans. The Catholic Church, through its parishes, influenced 90% of the population of Latin America.
But since the traditions of Catholicism were established on a continent where the indigenous population were Indians, the Catholic religion in Latin America has a number of features. First of all, this is a huge number of saints, whose sculptural images were zealously worshiped by the population. Scientists believe that the Indians, after the destruction of their idols by the colonialists, transferred to Catholicism their desire to worship “divine powers,” idolize them and even turn them into a simple amulet.
Stories about miracles and apparitions of saints have always circulated among various segments of the population. The fact is that in Latin American countries, since pre-Columbian times, it has been customary to use substances that cause hallucinations. This tradition spread from the Indians to the poor white population. Wanting to recover from illness and find out their fate, people took herbs at home altars, where there were a large number of sculptures of various saints.
Scientists explain this feature of beliefs by the combination of the cultures of the indigenous population and the colonialists who brought Catholicism. The pagan idols destroyed by the church were replaced with images of Christian saints, to whom they turned as needed with requests, and even demands.
Let's sum it up
You became acquainted with the different types of societies that formed in North and South America.
From the very beginning, the United States developed as a state of Europeans on American soil. North American society was formed as an industrial society. In the USA there was no omnipotence of the church; the country developed as a presidential republic, with all the democratic authorities inherent in this type of state. All this created conditions for the rapid development of the modernization process.
In the states of Latin America, the sprouts of democracy tried for a long time and difficultly to break through the prevailing norms of traditional society. Authoritarian regimes and caudilism stifled political freedoms.
Two Americas - two styles of life. Different traditions. Different culture. Different types of society.
Questions and assignments for Chapter IV
1. Discuss with your classmates why the development of states on the American continent took such different paths. 2. Express your opinion: were there any similarities in the history of the creation of the United States and states in Latin America? 3. The period of rapid industrialization of the country after the Civil War was called the “Gilded Age” by the American writer Mark Twain. What do you think he meant? Do you agree with this assessment? 4. Make a synchronistic table in your notebook “Main events in the USA and Latin America in the second half of the 19th century.”
|
Latin American countries |
||
5. You studied the chapter “Two Americas” and learned about the life path of a number of historical figures. Did any of them endear you to you? If yes, then what caused your sympathy for this person?
Creative works and projects
Creative work “Latin America is a melting pot.” Using the facts given in the textbook, additional literature, and Internet resources, write an essay on the proposed topic. Complete the work. What new things did you learn while working on the topic? What additional information would you like to know?
