America Can Build A Brighter Future By Examining Its Past

America Can Build A Brighter Future By Examining Its Past
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

So it’s finally over. America has spoken and elected its next leader, the 45th President of the United States. Half of us are happy, the other half may be anxious or fearful of what the future will bring. But whether your favorite won or not, we can work together to build a brighter future. The first step is remembering our past.

AZ Quotes

Winds in the east, mist coming in.

Like somethin' is brewin' and bout to begin.

Can't put me finger on what lies in store,

But I fear what's to happen all happened before.

The line from Walt Disney's classic film Mary Poppins (as well as its more recent adaptation) comes to mind fairly frequently lately, as American history continues to repeat itself in a vicious cycle of pain and horror. As a matter of fact, its' becoming increasingly apparent that our collective memory as a nation spans no more than about 40 years. Race riots, bigotry, religious wars and political polarization – they are nothing new, yet people act like all are signs of the end of times. Rather than display shock that such atrocities are occurring at all, the public should instead be horrified that we've let it happen once again.

Many are familiar with the classic line from Spanish-American philosopher and pragmatist George Santayana, who said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And as poignant the statement may be, it's actually only part of a longer passage from Santayana's The Life of Reason, Volume I, in which he said:

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Of course Mark Twain pointed out that "history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Sure, time keeps moving forward and the cast of characters is always changing. But the themes are reoccurring. And unless we start learning from the mistakes of our fathers, that is one carousel that will never stop turning.

Certain themes in human history will always repeat, simply due to the nature of man. But shouldn't we learn from mistakes, particularly those that have occurred in the past 100 years or less? So how do we end the cycle? How about remembering our past and the outcome of prior actions and decisions, for starters? Then maybe use that knowledge to make better decisions in the future. We are capable of growth as individuals, so why not as a nation? Unsure where to begin? Here are five ways American history is still repeating itself:

1. Race Riots

It's become all too common. Race riots erupted in Charlotte, N.C. following yet another fatal police shooting of a black man. As stray bullets flew throughout the city, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory declared a state of emergency in Charlotte. The violence paralleled other race riots in Furguson, Mo. and Baltimore, Md. in the past two years. But as horrifying as they may be, race riots are unfortunately not new to the United States, where the first European settlers brought with them racial prejudice half a millennium ago. Of course, most minorities weren't in a position to fight back until a few hundred years later. Ironically, the press played a major role in many of the incidents.

One of the earliest major race riots in the United States was also in North Carolina. In 1898 a group of Democrats attempted to remove blacks from political office by accusing them of sexually assaulting white women. Pretty shady, right? Soon after a black newspaper editor, Alex Manly, suggested the sexual relations were consensual. In response a mob of about 500 white men attacked and burned Manly's office, during which 14 black men were killed.

The riot involving racist white men wasn't a fluke, either. In 1906 Atlanta, a crowd of 10,000 white men took to the streets, beating black men, injuring hundreds and killing as many as 100. What set them off? More unfounded newspaper reports of black men assaulting white women.

A weeklong riot occurred in East St. Louis, Ill. 100 years ago. In 1917 when yet another mob of white men became violent with hundreds of African Americans all because of a rumor that one of them killed a white man. Not only were hundreds of black men killed, but the mob also burned down the homes of its African-American neighbors. Over the next 100 or so years, more racial tension led to race riots in Chicago, Tulsa, Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark, Washington D.C. and New York City before occurring once again in Ferguson in 2014.

While most of the earlier race riots occurred when prejudiced whites took out their anger on black neighbors, the violence later resulted when those same black residents had more than enough of the bigotry and mistreatment constantly handed down to them by a racist nation. And a disturbingly large number of those riots erupted over police violence. Whether it was the 1991 Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. or the killing of Michael Brown, the men and women in blue hold their share of the blame.

2. Police Brutality

Before all the #BlueLivesMatter folks work themselves into a tizzy, let's clarify: The vast majority of police officers are heroic public servants who proudly wear the badge to protect and serve their communities. But they are all cast in a negative light when they turn a blind eye to or defend the bad apples among the bunch. And it's nothing new. The United States boasts a long history of African-Americans shot down by law enforcement at an alarmingly higher rate than their Caucasian counterparts. And unbelievably, there are still a large number of Americans who convince themselves the problem doesn't exist, that all of those men deserved what they got, and the needless slaughter has nothing to do with race. Sure, and I've got a bridge to sell you, too.

Instead of considering each incident individually, why can't we see the bigger picture, which is much less justifiable? Periodic bouts of police violence against African-Americans have recurred since Reconstruction, generally following a period of civil-rights gains in accordance with economic uncertainty, such as the election of our first African-American president and the Great Recession.

"You get an uprising of white violence against communities of color when white folks think they are losing their power," said Judy Richardson, a former Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) activist and producer of PBS’ Eyes on the Prize series. According to Richardson, insecurity among whites who fear progress by blacks will cost them economic status and political power is to blame. For example, when black veterans returned from World War II, Southern lawmakers stepped up their efforts to deny them voting rights, and the number of lynchings increased.

Another period marked by heavy police violence against African-Americans occurred in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Act killed Jim Crowe and guaranteed a number of rights to all American minorities, and apparently a number of white politicians and law enforcement officers resented the progress. We've all seen footage of police officers beating black men and women during this time, and it probably occurred much more often than today – people just weren't able to record every incident by pulling their phone out of their pocket, and they couldn't share it with the world in less than a minute.

Perhaps such readily-available coverage of the violence has desensitized the public to the brutality, however. In the 60s, militant groups such as the Black Panthers called for their supporters to kill cops, and some underground groups actually followed through, while today's protesters are more often peaceful or in the least less organized in their attacks – and thank goodness for that! At the same time, the desensitization has made the greater American public less prone to demand change. Which is worse?

3. Political Polarization

It seems Americans are more polarized than ever when it comes to politics, in both their fiscal and social views. Some are even beginning to predict the next civil military conflict among the warring sides. In fact, a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center found that Republicans and Democrats are further apart ideologically than at any other point in recent history. In the past two decades, the number of Americans whose opinions are consistently conservative or liberal has more than doubled, and as a result the amount of idealogical overlap between the two parties has significantly diminished. For example, 20 years ago the typical Republican was more conservative than 70 perent of Democrats compared to 94 percent more conservative in 2014. The median Democrat is now more liberal than 92 percent of Republicans, up from 64 percent. Likewise, the number of Americans who have "very" unfavorable opinions of the opposing party nearly tripled during the same period.

OK, so we know we've become polarized. But we seem to forget that we've been here before, and it didn't turn out so good. It's been awhile, but the last time American politics grew so polarized as today was during the Civil War. That's right, we were more united during the Vietnam War era, as well as the segregated and Red-fearing 1950s. As a matter of fact, our elected leaders grew less polarized during each decade following the Civil War until the trend reversed as the nation entered the two world wars and the Great Depression – times of fear and animosity.

So we've been so polarized before, but it was during one of the most violent and tumultuous period in our history, leading to the death of 600,000 Americans. And it only took less than 50 years to forget any lessons learned in the tragic period. While we're forming armies to fight against each other, the two sides are costing American taxpayers billions of dollars, all because our Congress is so divided that members of the two parties refuse to work together and even caused a government shutdown. Can our leaders learn to reach across the aisle and compromise, or are we on the verge of another Civil War? Will American voters accept a president that wasn't their choice, or will we rehash the 1860 dilemma when Lincoln's election led states to secede from the union? Can we learn to disagree respectfully?

4. Gun Control

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Never before has a single sentence caused so much discourse. It's a safe bet that the founding fathers – had they been aware of the conflict and havoc those words would still create more than two centuries later – would have elaborated their intent. But they didn't, and therefore we can't agree on gun laws to this day. But let's not even get into whether the 2nd Amendment referred to anything more than arming a volunteer militia for national defense – something we have no need for today now that we have our own military. We'll save those arguments for another time. At this point we can't even agree whether common-sense gun regulation is proper under the Bill of Rights. But what many members of the pro-gun crowd don't seem to realize, is that the "good old days" they miss so much were marked by plenty of firearm restrictions.

Those same founding fathers who wrote the 2nd Amendment and – according to many – banned regulating an individual's right to bear arms actually enacted a good deal of gun regulations during those early days of a united nation. At the same time they guaranteed the right to bear arms, they denied gun ownership to many people: Slaves, free blacks and even law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution were barred from possessing guns. At the same time, those who did qualify to bear arms were actually required to do so, supporting the notion that the 2nd Amendment was more about national defense than individual rights. A 1792 federal law mandated that every eligible man purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the militia. The men then had to report for frequent musters, where their guns would be inspected and even registered on public rolls.

In those days, however, the heavier gun regulation originated at the state level. During the Founding Era, states prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. Regulation was more intrusive following the War of 1812 when a variety of states passed laws banning the possession of concealed weapons, and in some cases even the sale of concealable weapons.

Gun control only increased, ironically, as the United States moved into the era now often known as the Wild West. Frontier towns such as Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge enforced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In fact, the laws of many Western cities prohibited gun possession within their borders. Visitors to many frontier towns were actually required to leave their firearms on the outskirts of town or with the sheriff, who would provide them with a token that could be exchanged for the gun's return upon leaving the city. Even residents were often barred from carrying guns in public.

The federal government took its turn in regulating firearms in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, which – in response to the rampant gangster culture – regulated and added a tax to the making and transfer of automatic weapons and weapons preferred by the era's criminals, such as sawed-off shotguns. It followed up with the enactment of the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, which restricted interstate trade of guns and ammunition. It also required dealers register and track transactions. Other gun regulations were passed in 1968, 1986 and 1993 and – surprise – no one has come to take our guns yet.

5. Vilified Immigrants

We are a nation of bigots. There, I said it. But anyone who truly researches American history will find the same truth. Ideologically, America is the great melting pot, the land of the free that welcomes weary travelers. But more often than not, it's all a farce. Americans have found reasons to vilify immigrants for most of the nation's history. First it was the Jews and Catholics of southern and eastern Europe who threatened what was considered "American" values. The Irish were considered drunks, Italians were thought to be criminals and the Chinese were terrorized. The largest lynching in U.S. history saw 11 Sicilians killed by an angry mob. We passed laws that screamed racism, including the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Immigration Act of 1924 and Executive Order 9066, which authorized the evacuation of anyone deemed a threat to national security – and only applied to those of Japanese ancestry. When Pastor A.E. Patton described Jewish immigrants in the 1880s, he easily could have been speaking of Muslim immigrants today:

For a real American to visit Ellis Island, and there look upon the Jewish hordes, ignorant of all patriotism, filthy, vermin-infested, stealthy and furtive in manner, too lazy to enter into real labor, too cowardly to face frontier life, too lazy to work as every American farmer has to work, too filthy to adopt ideals of cleanliness from the start, too bigoted to surrender any racial traditions or to absorb any true Americanisms, for a real American to see those items of filth, greedy, never patriotic stream flowing in to pollute all that has made America as good as she is–is to awaken in his thoughtful mind desires to check and lessen this source of pollution.

Then it was Jews and Japanese, now it's Arabs and Muslims. Then we feared the Irish and Italians, now our leaders villainize our Hispanic friends and neighbors. And the funny part? The "problem" with illegal immigration is a sham. In fact, the number of undocumented people illegally living in the United States is now at a 13-year low. President Obama, who was harshly criticized for trying to defer deportation of Americans’ immigrant parents, has also been called "the Great Deporter," and "El Presidente Deporto," simply based on the number of immigrants deported during his term – more than any previous president. What's wrong with that picture?

Of course we don't have the resources to just open the gates and let the entire world in. But it's time we learn from our past prejudices. Like it or not, we are a nation of immigrants. Unless you are of pure native blood, you are only here because your ancestors immigrated (by choice or by force). And history tells us that many of our immigrant ancestors weren't treated very well, to say the least. When will we learn to be better in the future than we were in the past? The Japanese Interment during World War II was a shameful period in American history, but we now have political leaders vowing to treat our Muslim citizens the same way. America turned away Jewish refugees during the Holocaust for so many of the same reasons we've blocked Syrian refugees today. And as far as building a wall? Let's ask the Germans how that turned out.

Many Americans — just a hair less than half of us according to the official numbers — will wake up Wednesday morning fearing for the future of their nation and their children. But we don’t have to let this election define us. Remember, the president is only one person. The commander in chief, yes, but not our entire government. We have checks and balances, we have a voice. And if we can only look at our past, we can make better choices for our future.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot