What is the story of American history? With all this complexity of experiences and perspectives, how are we supposed to make sense of American history?
Where to Start?
We begin this course in American history by asking this question: What is the story of American history?
American history has almost countless events, dramas, and experiences.
• It includes many wars – King Philip’s War, the War for Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish–American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, etc.
• It includes many injustices – anti–Catholicism, anti–Semitism, the Trail of Tears, the internment of Japanese–Americans, coerced medicine, the practice of slavery (the biggest injustice) until the 13th Amendment, racial segregation, etc. • It includes amazing achievements – anti–slavery movements, advances in nutrition, technology, transportation, medicine, and communications, the massive increase in the standard of living as the nation’s population quadrupled in the 1900s, the defeat of German National Socialism, the innovative use of energy, the creation of the Internet, etc.
• It includes complex patterns of immigration – periods of high and periods of low or restricted immigration
o Periods of high immigration include: 1840s & ’50s, 1880s, 1900–1914, 1919–1924, 1965– present
o Periods of lower or restricted immigration included 1860s & ’70s, 1890s, 1924 – 1965
o The present period (1965–present) includes more immigrants (over 60 million) than the total number of immigrants in American history before 1965 (about 45 million).
Back to our question: “What is the story of American history?” We might answer, there is no one story. Rather, there are many stories. The United States is a diverse nation made up of people from diverse national, racial, and religious backgrounds. We could say that there is not “the story” of American history, but there are “many stories” – the stories of the diverse peoples that make up America.
That’s certainly true. Just a few examples highlight this point:
• The experiences of Italian or Polish immigrants around 1900 differed from the experiences of the English settlers of Plymouth colony in 1620.
• The experiences of Dominican immigrants in the early 2000s differed from the experiences of Africans brought here as slaves in the 1700s.
• The experiences of Irish immigrants in the early 1800s differed from the experiences of Korean immigrants in the late 1900s.
These are all different stories. And we can view them from different perspectives. Imagine looking at history the way we look at maps on the internet. We can zoom in on internet maps to look closely at details like individual streets. Or we can zoom out to look more broadly at entire countries or continents. We can view history the same way. We can zoom in to look closely at the details of different stories in history. Or we can zoom out to look more broadly at patterns from a distance.
Zoom in & Zoom out
For example, consider the religion of English settlers in the 1620s, Irish immigrants in the 1840s, and Italian immigrants in the early 1900s.
• If we zoom in on the details of these various people, we can see this:
o Most English settlers were Protestant. Most Irish and Italian immigrants were Catholic. Protestants were a majority through most of American history. And they were often intolerant of Catholic immigrants who were a religious minority. That’s why it was a big deal when the first Catholic president was elected in 1960 – John Kennedy. Every president before then was Protestant.
o We can zoom in even more and see differences just among English Protestants. Two types of English Protestants are English Congregationalists and English Baptists. English Congregationalists dominated New England in early American history. They often discriminated against English Baptists who were a religious minority. So by zooming in on details, we see these different experiences among English Protestants.
• But if we zoom out, and look at patterns from a distance, we might see something different:
o All three groups – English Protestants, and Irish and Italian Catholics – are Christian. From this zoomed out perspective, we might be less concerned with the experiences of different Christian groups and more concerned with the relationships between Christians and non–Christians, such as Muslim immigrants from Africa or Hindu immigrants from India.
o This zoomed out perspective has the advantage of more clearly seeing the experiences of non–Christians. Yet it has the disadvantage of less clearly seeing the different experiences among Christians.
We can similarly zoom in and zoom out while focusing on the ethnicity of English settlers along with Irish and Italian immigrants.
• If we zoom in, we can see this:
o Many English were intolerant of Irish and Italian immigrants. Nineteenth–century Irishmen and women were familiar with the acronym “NINA.” It stood for “No Irish Need Apply.” It was a common form of discrimination against the Irish in job advertisements. Other ads specified that applicants should be Protestant, thus excluding most Italians who were Catholic.
• But if we zoom out, and look from a distance, we might see something different:
o All three groups – English, Irish, and Italian – are “white.” From this zoomed out perspective, we might be less concerned with the different experiences of Americans with European ancestry and more concerned with the relationships between these Americans and Americans with African, Caribbean, or Asians ancestries.
o This zoomed out perspective has the advantage of more clearly seeing the experiences of Americans with non–European ancestries. In the process we less clearly see the different experiences of Americans with a European ancestry, such as Irish and Italians.
There is no right or wrong perspective. Thinking historically requires both zooming in and zooming out to see the complexities of human experiences – both the details and the broad patterns. These complexities highlight different ways we see and think about each other, both historically and today.
Consider another example. This one is about Native Americans and European settlers in the 1600s.
• If we zoom out, we see a broad pattern of deadly conflicts between Native peoples and European settlers. One conflict was the Pequot War (1637). Here are some facts:
o English settlers of Massachusetts Bay, often called “puritans,” built three towns on the Connecticut River in the 1630s. These towns were just west of the Pequot Indians. The Pequots viewed the English and their desire for land as a threat. As one Pequot said, “their chiefest desire is to deprive us of the privilege of our land.” The Pequots thus attacked the English town of Wethersfield, roasting several at the stake, killing men and women, and taking children captive.
o The English responded with a brutal assault on the Pequot town of Fort Mystic. They lit the fort on fire. Pequot warriors were killed as they fled and the English took Pequot women and children captive. See Pequot War map here (Map a).
o This was clearly a deadly conflict between Natives and Europeans. The English assault destroyed the Pequot nation of about 600–700 people.
• If we zoom in, we see that the broad pattern of deadly conflicts includes the following complexities:
o The Pequots were part of the Algonquian peoples of southern New England. Other Algonquian tribes feared the Pequots because of their aggression. Two such tribes were the Narragansetts and Wampanoags. Their fear of the Pequots overlapped with the English desire for land. These tribes thus encouraged the English from Massachusetts to settle along the Connecticut River in the 1630s as protection against the Pequots.
o The Pequots tried to create alliances among the Algonquian to fight the English. But several tribes refused. Instead, the Narragansetts along with another Algonquian tribe the Mohegans sided with the English. It was Narragansett and Mohegan warriors who attacked Pequots fleeing Fort Mystic after the English lit the fort on fire.
o Some Pequot warriors escaped the English attack. They went west hoping to form an alliance with Mohawk Indians against the English. The Mohawk were part of the Iroquois tribes of New York. See Iroquois map here (Map b). When the Pequots reached Albany, the Mohawks executed them and sent Pequot scalps back to the English in Massachusetts. This signaled that the Mohawk sought an alliance with the English against other Europeans in New York – the Dutch.
The Mohawk also played an important role in another deadly conflict called King Philip’s War (1675–76). King Philip was the nickname of the Wampanoag chief Metacom.
• If we zoom out, we again see a broad pattern of deadly conflicts between Native peoples and European settlers.
o The Wampanoag, along with the Narragansett, Nipmuck, and Abenaki, led an uprising against the English.
o The Native peoples attacked 52 of the 110 English town throughout New England. They burnt 17 to the ground. They won battle after battle. But they could not import food and guns the way the English could. Philip thus appealed to the ferocious Mohawk for guns and fighters.
• If we zoom in, we see the war includes the following complexities:
o The Mohawk responded to Philip’s appeal by entering the war. But they did so against the Wampanoag and on the side of the English. The Mohegan people also sided with the English.
o At the same time, the English governor of New York, Edmund Andros, sought alliances with Native peoples in New England in order to claim part of Connecticut for New York.
o In the end, the war was devastating for the English, resulting in large numbers of widows, orphans, and disabled. Yet it was even more devastating for the Wampanoags, Narragansetts, and Nipmuck. Though these tribes weren’t completely destroyed, their power was and their land was increasingly open to settlement. As the above details highlight, the shifting alliances in the 1600s are complex. This is because rivalries, conflicts, and wars were common among Native peoples before Europeans arrived, just as rivalries, conflicts, and wars were common among European peoples before they crossed the Atlantic. Once Europeans arrived, the conflicts among Natives and the conflicts among Europeans became intertwined. The result was changing systems of alliances among some Natives and Europeans against other Natives and Europeans. For example, in the 1700s,
• The Algonquian and the Iroquois were enemies.
• The French and the English were enemies.
• The Algonquian allied with the French in the Great Lakes region against the Iroquois who allied with the English.
The shifting relationships and conflicts among European and Native peoples highlight the importance of both zooming in and zooming out when studying history. One perspective is not enough. Both are needed to avoid oversimplifying the historical peoples we study. And oversimplifying them is a way of dehumanizing them.
“What is the story of American history?” With all this complexity of experiences and perspectives, how are we supposed to make sense of American history? Where should we start? We’ll pursue these questions in the next lecture.
