NOTICE TO READERS: For six years, Reid's Reader has been presenting an entirely free service to readers with commentary on books new and old. Reid's Reader
receives no grants or subsidies and is produced each week in many hours
of unpaid work. If you wish to contribute, on an entirely voluntary
basis, to the upkeep of this blog, we would be very grateful if you made
a donation via the PayPal "DONATE" button that now appears at the top
of the index at right. Thank you.]
We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.
We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.
“WHITE TRASH – The 400-Year
Untold Story of Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg (Atlantic Books / Allen and
Unwin, $NZ45)
One
of my sons used to relate with amusement the opinions of some American students,
who were in the same History class as he at university. No matter how much
evidence was presented to them, they refused to believe that the United States
had ever participated in imperialism in the age when empire-building was common
among European nations. The British, the French, the Dutch and others built
empires, they thought, but the democratic USA wasn’t part of this perfidious
business. Somehow they failed to recognise as acts of imperialism the
progressive taking of Native American territory, the annexation of half of
Mexico in the 1840s, the Spanish-American War, the capture of Puerto Rico and
Guam, turning the Philippines and Cuba into client states and the forcible
expropriation of Central American territory to build the Panama Canal.
Apparently,
because these acts were American, they were not imperialism.
This
is an example of the phenomenon of national “exceptionalism” – the idea that
somehow a country is exempt from the social pressures and movements that
activate other countries. I’m not so crass as to think that only Americans suffer
from this delusion. When I tutored German history at university, I often heard
of the German belief in the “Sonderweg” (“special way”) that their country had
become unified. Some Germans apparently forgot that the unification of any country has its own unique
features and is therefore as “special” as Germany is.
A
foolish American belief in “exceptionalism” with regard to imperialism is less
pervasive, however, than the foolish American belief that the USA is a
classless society. Here again there is “exceptionalism”. The USA, goes the
belief, was founded on democratic principles. All its citizens are equal and
have the same rights. There is no hereditary ruler or aristocracy. Sure, there
are differences in wealth, but anybody who works hard can make it to the top –
“log cabin to White House” – so there are no real class differences. The USA is
a meritocracy.
If
Nancy Isenberg’s large (300 big pages, plus over 100 pages of notes, references
and index) book White Trash has any
mission, it is to shatter this illusion. By focusing on the most deprived,
poorest and least educated whites in the USA (yes, there are deprived blacks,
but they are not the focus of this narrative), Isenberg wants to show that
there has always been an underclass in the USA, and that claims to
“classlessness” are mere rhetoric. “Throughout
its history”, she says in her preface, “the
United States has always had a class system. It is not only directed by the top
1 per cent and supported by a contented middle class. We can no longer ignore
the stagnant, expendable bottom layers of society in explaining the national
identity.” (Preface, p.xv). In the modern context, Republicans are more
likely to condemn the poor for being idle and dependent but, says Isenberg,
Democrats have their own condescension: “Democrats,
in general, endorse the liberal idea of meritocracy, in which talent is
rewarded through the acquisition of earned academic credentials. Yet this dream
is not possible for all Americans. Only 30% of Americans today graduate
college, which means the majority does not imagine this path up the social
ladder is a ticket to success.” (2017 Preface p.xxvii).
So
she launches into the long history of “white trash”, whose origins predate the
invention of the USA. In the 17th century, colonising England
attempted to off-load many of its poorest classes as indentured labour to the
wealthy colonists and plantation owners.
They were already known as “lubbers”, “rubbers”, “clay-eaters” and
“crackers” before 13 colonies asserted that they were now the United States of
America. “First known as ‘waste people’,
and later ‘white trash’, marginalised Americans were stigmatised for their
inability to be productive, to own property, or to produce healthy and upwardly
mobile children – the sense of uplift on which the American dream was
predicated.” (Preface, p.xv)
In
both the New England (Puritan) colonies and the Virginian (tobacco-growing
plantation) colonies, there was a rigid social hierarchy and many landless
indentured labourers. Of the Puritan colonies Isenberg writes: “By the 1630s, New Englanders reinvented a
hierarchical society of ‘stations’, from
ruling elite to household servants. In their number were plenty of poor boys,
meant for exploitation. Some were religious, but they were in the minority
among the waves of migrants that followed [the first few ships]. The elites owned Indian and African slaves,
but the population they most exploited were their child labourers.”
(Introduction, p.10)
Men
who are now considered to represent the Enlightenment took it for granted that
any society settled in American had to
have social inequalities. John Locke (Chapter 2) wrote a constitution for
the Carolinas which showed an essentially feudal mindset. Tenants of landowners,
in Locke’s Utopia, were to be allowed no land. They and their descendants would be bound to the landowner’s land. Only
thus would there be social stability.
The
men who founded the American Republic had many of the same attitudes. Benjamin
Franklin and Thomas Paine (Chapter 3) both exalted the hard-working, industrious
and philoprogenitive middle class, who they believed would create a new sort of
society in America. They spoke of the benefits of industry, trade and commerce
while pretending that social class didn’t exist. Neither of them had anything
to say about slavery or about the huge classes of servants and indentured
labourers. Indeed their words for the young republic’s poor were most often
words of contempt. They were idle, a rabble etc.
In
response to Thomas Paine’s view that America was to be the home of able,
hardworking men and women, Isenberg tartly remarks: “This overly sanguine portrait cleaned up class and ignored what was
unpleasant to look at. Indentured servitude and convict labour were still very
much in evidence as the Revolution neared, and slavery was a fact of life.
Philadelphia had a slave auction outside the London Coffee House, at the centre
of the town on Front and Market Streets, which was directly across from Paine’s
lodgings. In Common Sense, the propagandist mentioned ‘Negroes’ and
‘Indians’ solely to discredit them for being mindless pawns of the British,
when they were incited to harass and kill white Americans and undermine the
worthy cause of independence…. Civilized America was being pitted against the
barbarous hordes set upon them by the ‘hellish’ power of London.” (Chapter
3, p.82)
A
major framer of the American constitution was equally limited in his views.
Thomas Jefferson (Chapter 4) had the habits of thought of the wealthy Virginian
gentleman and plantation-owner that he was. His aim was to create an agrarian
republic based on trade in agricultural produce, but headed by a “natural”
aristocracy, which he believed would arise by its own talent. In effect, he wanted
to perpetuate a squirearchy based on land ownership and he refused to recognise
that there was an underclass, even if he did often speak of “rubbish people”.
Notes Isenberg:
“The question that Jefferson never answered
was this: What happened to those who were not part of the talented elite? How
would one describe the ‘concourse of breeders’ living on the bottom layer of
society? No matter how one finessed it, rubbish produced more rubbish, even if
a select few might be salvaged. If the fortuitous breeders naturally rose up
the social ladder, the unfortunate, the degenerate, remained mired in the
morass of meaner sorts.” (Chapter 4, p.102)
There were
many “squatters” and “crackers” on the pre- and post-Revolutionary “frontier” –
that is, the margin where British (and later American) territory met country
occupied by “Indians”. Many of the
founders of the republic, and many of the middle classes, regarded these people
as landless scum but, just as the British had recruited vagrants for their
armies, their descendants the Americans used these “frontier” people to fight
Indians and break open the land for later settlement. There was also (Chapter
5) the growing awareness that the votes of the “squatters” and “crackers” could
be solicited in elections. The ephemeral figure of Davy Crockett gave the
frontiersmen an heroic image. But the first person to appeal systematically to
the underclass was Andrew Jackson, the bellicose, profoundly racist military
man. Framing himself as the champion of the frontiersmen and uncouth rural
lower classes, Jackson made it to the White House. But in the end, he too saw
the lower classes as not being part of the political nation, given that he
never moved to enlarge (manhood) suffrage and kept to a high property
qualification for voting.
As she
approaches chapters concerning the American Civil War, Isenberg tends to concentrate more and more on the
American South. The term “poor white trash” was already in circulation early in
the 19th century, but it became a widespread usage in the years just
before the civil war. As Isenberg tells it (Chapter 6), anti-slavery
(abolitionist) Northerners saw the South’s poor white underclass as enfeebled
because the institution of slavery had denied them the opportunity to labour
honestly. Isenberg at this point surprises me by pointing out that the “Free
Soil” movement, which wanted slavery not to be extended beyond the existing
“frontier”, also wanted newly-settled territories to segregate white from black, so that poor whites would not
drift into habits of idleness.
Meanwhile, the pro-slavery leaders of the South saw their white
underclass as the products of bad biology. Even if nobody yet knew about
genetics, there were already widespread theories of poor biological
inheritance. This allowed the slave-owning gentry to ignore the issue of class,
and to believe that the illiterate, uncouth whites among them simply had the
wrong ancestors.
In the
Confederate South, however, quite apart from the issue of slavery, there were
huge class differentials between whites with regard to the prosecution of the
war. (Chapter 7) Plantation owners with more than 20 slaves were exempted from
military service. Wealthier men were allowed to send substitutes off to fight.
This meant that the Confederacy relied on mass conscription of poor
non-slave-owning whites, many of whom felt no loyalty to the Confederacy. This
really was, as the poorer soldiers said, “the
rich man’s war but the poor man’s fight”. The result was a very high rate
of desertions and, in effect, a class war. As the war dragged on, Confederate
posses were sent out to round up some of the more than 100,000 deserters, many
of whom hid out in swamps and wasteland. As often as not, the deserters fought
them off. Says Isenberg:
“Wars in general, and civil wars to a greater
degree, have the effect of exacerbating class tensions, because the sacrifices
of war are always distributed unequally, and the poor are hit hardest. North
and South had staked so much on their class-based definitions of nationhood that
it is no exaggeration to say that in the grand scheme of things, Union and
Confederate leaders saw the war as a clash of class systems wherein the
superior system would reign triumphant.”
(Chapter 7, p.173)
It was after
the civil war that the plague of eugenics swept America. Always seeking ways to
“explain” why there was a deprived underclass without having to examine the
unequal economic basis of society, and leaning on social Darwinism,
academics and those in positions of power hit on eugenics. The “poor white
trash” must be the result of poor breeding. Many who believed this came from
the North. After the civil war, Freedmen’s Bureaux were set up in the South by
the federal government to assist former slaves in establishing themselves in
business or farming. But they also offered assistance to poor landless whites.
Again and again, bureau men discovered that black freedmen were more
industrious, more literate and more willing to work than were the “white trash”. Very soon “They invoked a vocabulary that highlighted
unnatural breeding, unfit governance, and the degenerate nature of the worst
stocks. At the centre of the argument was the struggle that pitted poor whites
against freed slaves.” (Chapter 8, p.176)
The
eugenicists had a number of plans – forced sterilisation and castration;
quarantining of the “unfit”; even systematic killing of the “unfit”. These
ideas were mainstream. As Isenberg
notes; “Such proposals were not merely
fringe ideas. By 1931, twenty-seven states had sterilisation laws on their books,
along with an unwieldy thirty-four categories delineating the kind of people
who might be subject to the surgical procedure. ….” (Chapter 8, p.195) As
late as 1927, the much-respected justice Oliver Wendell Holmes endorsed
compulsory sterilisation in the case of Burke vs. Bell (p.205). It is no
accident that it was when eugenics was still mainstream that novels by William
Faulkner and Erskine Caldwell began to perpetuate the stereotype of slobbering,
degenerate, white trash with their overlarge families of idiot children and
uncontrollable sexual lusts. It was much easier to deny people decent schooling
and incomes when you could say they were subhuman anyway.
When
Isenberg gets to the Great Depression after 1929, she notes that class
consciousness was suddenly given a boost as millions of middle-class and
working-class people were thrown out of work and realised how precarious their
class status had been. The white underclass in the South expanded as “…the South’s one-crop system and ‘rural
slum areas’ in the countryside… guaranteed the pernicious cycle of poor white
and black sharecroppers’ poverty from one generation to the next. Two-thirds of
the nation’s tenant farmers were in the South, and two-thirds were white. These
facts cannot be overstated. The agricultural distress of the Depression exposed
the South’s long-standing dependence on sub-marginal land and sub-marginal
farmers.” (Chapter 9, p.215) This was the world of Steinbeck’s Okies and
Arkies and The Grapes of Wrath. Yet
even in these conditions, many leading Southern politicians clung to the idea
that poverty was simply the result of sloth. Hence there was sometimes in the
South resistance to New Deal programmes that would have provided some social
uplift. This was at the time that journalists – and especially
photo-journalists – were documenting the South’s rural white poverty and
esposing wide class divisions.
When
Isenberg comes to the 1940s and 1950s (Chapter 10), she switches to a concern
for media interpretations of “white trash” and gets into the related (and
mainly Southern) phenomenon of trailer parks and “trailer trash”. She also
notes the extreme shock that the ending of racial segregation was to poor
whtes, focusing on the events in Little Rock in 1957. And it is only at this
point that she gives some thought to the separate, but related, topic of
hillbillies. Reaching the near past and the present (Chapters 11 and 12),
Isenberg notes the rise of identity politics and hence the rise of “white
trash” nostalgia and “white trash” pride. But there was still much middle-class
condescension, as in James Dickey’s novel (and film) Deliverance, which harked back to the days of eugenics with its
stereotypes of inbred, moronic white trash.
By the time
we get to these chapters, Isenberg surrenders much of her detailed social
analysis and – something in the manner of post-modernists – becomes more
concerned with appearances and perception than with quantifiable facts. So
there are detailed accounts of the appeal of Elvis Presley or of the
Southern good o’ boy President Jimmy Carter and of his loudmouth slob brother
Billy Carter. And there are wry pages on Dolly Parton and the wealthy (and
fraudulent) preacher Jimmy Bakker and his tacky wife Tammy Fae and how they
represent the “trailer trash” ethos almost driven to high camp. And there are
notes on how “Slick Willie” Bill Clinton won the White House partly by
manipulating his supposed “poor Southern white boy” appeal; and how Sarah Palin
played to a similar audience. Indeed after all these commentaries and character
profiles, Isenberg returns to sober class analysis only in the very last
paragraph of Chapter 12 (p. 309).
So to her
Epilogue, which stridently returns to her key theme – that America is not
exceptional, does have a class structure and has always had an ignored white
underclass – the “white trash” of the title. She sums up much of their
historical plight thus:
“They are blamed for living on bad land, as
though they had other choices. From the beginning, they have existed in the
minds of rural or urban elites and the middle class as extrusions of the weedy,
unproductive soil. They are depicted as slothful, rootless vagrants, physically
scarred by their poverty. The worst ate clay and turned yellow, wallowed in mud
and muck, and their necks became burned by the hot sun. Their poorly clothed,
poorly fed children generated what others believed to be a permanent and
defctive breed. Sexual deviance? That comes from cramped quarters in obscure
retreats, distant from civilisation, where the moral vocabulary that dwells in
the town has been lost. We think of the left-behind groups as extinct, and the
present as a time of advanced thought and sensibility. But today’s trailer
trash are merely yesterday’s vagrants on wheels, and updated version of Okies
in jalopies and Florida crackers in their carts.” (Epilogue, p.320)
After
all this, let me make it clear that I do not disagree with Isenberg’s essential
thesis. In fact a big part of me wants to say that Isenberg is stating the
bleeding obvious. Most informed and thinking Americans are fully aware that
they live in a class-based society – as does every other human being on the
planet. Essentially, rhetoric about “classlessness” is there for public
orations and the cheesiest of high school civics courses. Perhaps the American
“exceptionalism” is merely the fact that the lowest stratum of their society is
so overtly and so aggressively ridiculed.
And here I
take issue with one of Isenberg’s assertions. She speaks of middle-class
condescension towards the white poor, and notes Republicans are fond of
preaching the value of hard work as a means of social improvement rather than
government assistance to the impoverished. But Isenberg could have made it
clear that the “liberal” – and presumably Democrat-voting - urbanites are just
as prone to ridiculing the “poor white trash”. Look at any late night New York
satire show to see what I mean. While I’m nitpicking, I should also note that
while she (quite rightly) condemns the eugenics movement, Isenberg neatly sidesteps
its relationship with the push for birth control and ultimately abortion, which
Isenberg clearly supports. Let’s remember that Margaret Sanger, in effect the
founder of Planned Parenthood, and her colleagues were ardent eugenicists who
hoped that birth control would wipe out the “unfit”, and limit the number of
blacks in America, to ensure the dominance of white middle-class people who
were having fewer children. My point here is that Isenberg cherry-picks her
cast of characters.
One final
point. In her second preface, Isenberg notes “The book was
originally published in the middle of the contentious 2016 presidential
election season.” (2017 Preface p.xix) The impetus to write it may have
come from her fears about the looming presidency of Donald Trump and the
populist appeals he made. But as it happens, the book makes no further mention
of Trump and his presumed fan base.
I
am worried by the way White Trash
wobbles in some chapters away from the social analysis that is given elsewhere;
and I am not as amazed as some American reviewers seem to have been by the
revelation that America does have social classes. But, messy and rambling
though it is in structure, this book does give much food for thought and it is certainly
a repository of many interesting anecdotes and insights.
No comments:
Post a Comment