The Hidden History of Mestizo America

Name;

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

The Hidden History of Mestizo America

Gary B. Nash in the article The Hidden History of Mestizo America generates a novel argument on forbidden love between different races and ethnicities. This argument is based on the approach that an immigrant society gains its strength and weaknesses in its heterogeneity. The author argues that the early history of the American republic was one born of great promise in terms of an interracial society, but because of the settlement nature of the North Americans, the country would fall to the obsession of racial purity. The obsession is what shapes the slavery of millions of Africans in the early 20^th century and removal of native Indians from their cultural lands. Nash is indeed accurate in his geographic segmentation of races as a factor that promoted social division between races and ethnicities. A shortfall in the argument is the negation of economic factors during the period that shaped modern capitalism. Economics is a factor in American history that has greatly contributed to its racial and ethnic rigidity and consciousness.

Marxian economics argues that capitalist means of production and distribution of resources characterized 20^th-century societies given its social division implications. According to the social theory, modes of production were distinct in how they employed technology, labor, and other minor capital. Private ownership of this modes meant ownership of social classes as seen in the Industrial Revolution. The economic boom in Europe led to the wide immigration of Europeans in search of the golden nugget found in native Indian land. Nash argues that geographic segmentation of immigrants encourages social division in America. Despite being truthful, the author could highlight that settlement was strategic in terms of economics. Northern lands occupied by native Indians was more nutrient rich, thus was more favorable for agricultural production and associated manufacturing. The requirement to assert private ownership of resources encouraged keeping economic opportunities close between individuals and groups. In meaning, capitalism promoted racial purity as means of ascertaining continuity of private ownership.

Nash, at the end of the article, narrates that mixed-race relationships have become a normal norm in America. In addition, the author claims that the relationships have a long history in America because individualism allowed acceptance within a ‘purity obsessed’ society. The author, though correct in this approach, fails to note that the human society is dynamic meaning it is continuously evolving. Past social philosophers argued that capitalism was to be overruled by another modern concept that is communism. The ideal refers to the movement of advantage from the elite few to the majority. The imperative of having individuals have a collective voice is what structures democracy. Mixed race, relationships are supported more by liberal living in terms of politics and economics as opposed to the geographic distribution of persons.

Racial and ethnic rigidity and consciousness are a concept promoted by resource inequalities. The early history of the American republic was one born of great promise in terms of an interracial society. However, because of the settlement nature of the North Americans, the country would fall to the obsession of racial purity. Negation of economic factors lowers the credibility of his argument. The requirement to assert private ownership of resources in Marxian economics encouraged the close keeping of opportunities between individuals and groups. As time progressed, communism allowed movement of advantage from the elite few to the majority. Liberal living in terms of politics and economics significantly supports mixed race relationships.