Reading is one of my favorite pastimes, although I rarely read as much as I like. I enjoy pretty much anything but "self help" books. To no surprise, I've been reading a book called White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America. As the title implies, it focuses on the underclass more so than the upper classes. I have read books about the rich in America, how they became rich, and how the upper class formed. It's usually on the backs of others and rarely sugar coated. I've read books of how the industrial age helped create the middle class, but honestly I've only read a couple books about the underclass, the lower income, the lower class. Generally they focus on the problems with, not the creation. This book is unique in the fact that it is focuses on how the underclass, aka. the lower class, of America formed. It is unfortunately written with an extremely liberal political lean. I suspect a conversation with the author would be extremely interesting--not because I've remotely agreed with most of her analysis, but because I'd like to know how she formed these opinions about the lower class that slanted the book so much. It should be no surprise that it really makes the case if you read her opinions as facts that the underclass is a pitiful state and everyone that isn't part of it is to blame. But my blog isn't about her book, so much as my assessment of the classes in our society--maybe somewhat compared to hers since she was kind enough to share her opinions in an "historical" analysis.
For example, a fact is that Benjamin Franklin, yes the Founding Father Ben Franklin, wrote that the lower classes were debase, immoral, and basically worthless. Yet, this is also a man who very regularly employed "ladies of the evening" and was suspected of numerous liaisons with women of "fine breeding" who were married or otherwise disposed. We could go into the facts of his writings versus his hypocrisy of what his life was. She certainly does go into the Founding Father's history of an apprentice for his brother in Boston, thus chastising him for his low view of the 1700s underclass since in her mind he was of this underclass for "running away" from his apprenticeship. We won't go into the debate over whether this made him the underclass of his day, even temporarily. I simply have a different assessment of the facts of Ben Franklin's past and this is indicative of where her opinions split with mine.
However, that is one of the interesting fact of the times, the 1700s. Youngsters were "apprenticed" to tradesmen. This was a carry over from the society of Britain at the time. There was an emerging middle class in England that focused on trades such as printers, exporters, the law, et cetera. These apprentices were housed, clothed, educated in the particular trade and paid, often meagerly--the cost of this "education" was a form of servitude where the apprentice would have to work off the "debt" incurred for some number of years. In most cases, this servitude could go for years and years--even decades--and any apprentice that "ran away" could be arrested and placed in debtors prison. A modern comparison would be our military--sign a contract, be taught a job/trade and have to serve some amount of years, clothed, housed, 24/7 job with meager pay until the contract is paid in full. Apprenticeships of this sort actually continued into the early 1900s, although debtors prisons did not.
Debtors prisons were an English rule thing. They were really a European thing of the age. England was coat up with them and many of this underclass of England were shipped in droves to the Colonies after serving their time in debtors prison. The prison time did not alleviate the debt; it was still owed when the person was released. But much like today, anyone that served prison time had a black mark that made it difficult for them to work. Coming to the Colonies offered a way for these people to start anew. For the creditors, it offered a hope of recovering some of the funds that they were out. Ironically, often the funds they were "out" were rent, just the subsistence to pay for a roof over their heads were hard to come by. Sometimes this was because they had become accustomed to the landowners being lenient in collecting rent and then a new landowner wanted all the back rent immediately. More rarely it was a landowner who could no longer pay their own taxes and debts. This wasn't rare because it didn't happen often. It was rare because landowners were much less of the population. Ironically, both often came to the Colonies in search of a new beginning.
The myth that we evolved just from religious freedoms is at best true-ish. The Puritans were not some extremely chastised class under the Crown of English rule. In fact, in the 1600s the Puritans were a major party in the Parliament. That's right. They were part of the ruling class of England also. With the split from the Catholic Church prompted by a King who wanted to divorce and marry his mistress, there emerged multi-factions and ranges of religious piousness. The Puritans were those that thought any of the orate trimmings were unnecessary. Many of them began to question the concept of royal rule because they thought of God as all supreme and began to reject the notion that the King was crowned by God's authority.
So, this is what the Colonies were founded on. A lower class trying to escape debt or find their own pot of gold, a religious class that wanted to reject royal rule whether poor or not, and finally a group that were sent to rule. We won't bother with that third group. It was the group that extended the system set up in England to the Colonies and ultimately to the USA. It is arguably why we ultimately rebelled. A subject for a different blog perhaps. The fact is that most of us, even those that can trace their roots all the way back to the 1600s and 1700s are running away or rebels of some sort.
Now, the reality is that the lower classes of England were the majority of those that came to the Colonies. Kurt Cobain wrote "all we are is all we know". We, any one of us, are the sum of two things.. Our personality--the DNA that makes us up. And, our surroundings, and by surroundings I am referring to family, friends, social class, financial means. In reality maybe neither are controllable. We are born with our personality, which molds us based on the first 5 years of our lives most recent psychological research indicates, and the family and social standing of our family. That for most of us is the 1st five years of our lives and we have no choice in any of it. In personality, I include intellect and emotional responses--the whole make up of who we are. In family, social standing of the family--the economics of class are chosen for us. Here's where I agreed with her assessment. In order to maintain power and control, those in the upper classes of power encouraged layers of social class. Those in power put into place layers of class. Our ancestors were encouraged to ideal themselves into the layer they were in and look down on the layer below them. The irony in this approach is that the lower layers actually hold each other down because each of them is looking down and holding down someone. Regardless of color of skin, and often including color of skin, someone below them in their own minds, could be treated as less and have to accept that lower level in the societal ladder. There was no way out without someone from a higher layer being willing to help them up...ie. that whole apprenticeship "contract". More importantly, even when these opportunities presented themselves, whether someone in the lower classes accepted or even had the ability to accept these opportunities, all hinged on the environment they were in--whether their family supported it or not. In many cases, someone would talk down to the person who was "smart" enough to be offered these opportunities, as if the person thinking about improving their circumstance was getting higher and mightier than they were allowed to. It was a control based on jealousy and insecurity of the social class one was born into.
The book goes into how this jealousy and insecurity was used to victimize each other within a perceived social class layer. The keyword here is victimize. Yes, we do have people who have not the ability or the desire or both to leave their particular layer of class hell who will victimize others that are trying to leave their social layer. But the victim mentality is not shared by those that leave their social layers and her insight fails to recognize that. Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago, I would have agreed with her. But a few years in the deep South when only 51% of the state believed that someone of less than 95% white should be able to marry someone of 95% or more white--literally a State Constitution change voted on in 1998 in SC...well, I learned about these layers really quick. There's a lot to be said about actually living through something versus just reading about, talking about or even observing it. Twenty years ago, to my shock and dismay, people would get up in my face and ask me "what are you?" They were demanding that I identify my race. It was the mass majority of time this lower class of white that Dr. Isenberg is talking about. I gave sarcastic answers that had nothing to do with my race. Female, veteran, mother, ex-wife, American,.. I didn't get it at the time. Eventually, I looked at a couple, trashy, both appeared to be drug addicts, and up in my face demanding at the Winn Dixie, "what are yeewwww?" I glared at them--almost 10 years of this shit hadn't changed my resolve to not give the answer they were looking for--and flatly said "mechanical engineer". They looked at each other, looked at me, looked at each other, and did a 180 and sprinted away like they were trying to win the 50 yard dash in the Olympics. I stood there dumbfounded. I had this conversation on an average of once every couple months for the better portion of a decade. The normal response simply continued to demand I give them the answer they were looking for--what is my racial make up. "Who knew?" I thought to myself as I walked away.
The experiences that lead up to that moment ran through my mind. What was different this time? I had no idea. I was considerably dumbfounded. I was then relaying this episode to three colleagues--two black, one white--all Southerners for the entirety of their lives. They burst out laughing. What was so funny? "You really don't know?" was the response from the lady of the group. No, of course I didn't. I was raised that everyone was equal. That, it was explained, was a luxury of someone like me. Like me? WTH? I came from an educated family and basically thought of myself as white. Yes, point? None of this was making any sense to me. "You told them it didn't matter what race you were. When the cops got there, you are educated and they are white trash. The cops would side with you." The one friend and I talked about it more later. He told me that in the South there's still a strong social structure based on race and education, social class, and many still had nothing that made them better than anyone else other than their race. Ouch. What the hell? I had lived a pretty insulated life apparently. That was over 11 years ago, and while I see it has changed even over the last 11 years, I still see it in many of the people in the area. It seems to be stronger in areas where there isn't as much commerce. The more people, the more diversity of the people, this shallow and narrow insecure view of social structure of society seems to lessen.
That doesn't actually change that there are still social layers. At lunch with some peers, one of them was explaining to the group that he didn't think of "rednecks" like most people. I chuckled, but you know me. I had to ask. He said that he thought of rednecks as white trash. He's a pretty educated, smart guy. And white. I found this interesting. He's from my generation and I can see his point. I know people that run around with "redneck" as a badge of honor, and as he pointed out, can't pay their bills, looking for a fight, out in the bars even though they can't afford a beer and racist. I know some "rednecks" that aren't looking for a fight, are paying their bills, and can afford a beer, but his point was well noted. His mindset equates them with failure--not honor. Similarly, a very educated friend of mine has a very similar description as his of what she pictures as "nigger". She's a black Southern woman. She equates them as black trash with the same description as he described "redneck". Fascinating. The shift of class in America from the lower class being morally debase to someone who is not paying their bills and racist--regardless of their own race.
Admittedly, I'm struggling to finish the book. It's too much of her opinion as fact (or maybe even other scholars' opinions) and not enough real life experience. From my experience, we have made a lot of excuses for things that only time and education can change. Education is not my opinion--education is forming your own opinion based on facts. I may have peppered this blog, like any of my blogs with my opinions, but I'm neither a scholar or teacher. I'm conveying my knowledge and experience. I think less of my knowledge than the experiences that I've shared because each person may perceive the experiences differently than I do. So there is knowledge to be had even by a different interpretation of the experiences. But based on the knowledge of a dilettante (I've never claimed to be more) and life experiences I have had, I think the world is still changing. I believe Dr. Isenberg is still a function of her generation, the Boomers. They were polarized from the jump and still see the world in the us against them fashion. The plague of that mindset is well represented in what should be a scholarly book that is too slanted in one direction to truly be a scholarly work. The social classes of this country still exist, but they are far more fluid than they were and the newer generations don't see color or class as inhibiting as the Boomers or even GenX. The book focuses on a mindset of the social strife from the 1960s and 70s and uses that view to interpret writings and a belief system of the 1700s and beyond. That mindset is not only not fluid enough, but is to polarized to be used for a useful, tangible analysis of what is going on in America today. Dr. Isenberg would probably be better served meeting some of the people she's talking about, spending some lengthy time with them and even more importantly those that have been fluid in the social class structure. The insights of actual experience after 1980 might be far more enlightening than the books and other documents she references. Like all of us, she is the sum of her experiences and those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
No comments:
Post a Comment