American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century

by Gary Gerstle

This sweeping history of twentieth-century America follows the changing and often conflicting ideas about the fundamental nature of American Is the United States a social melting pot, as our civic creed warrants, or is full citizenship somehow reserved for those who are white and of the "right" ancestry? Gary Gerstle traces the forces of civic and racial nationalism, arguing that both profoundly shaped our society.

After Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders to victory during the Spanish American War, he boasted of the diversity of his men's origins- from the Kentucky backwoods to the Irish, Italian, and Jewish neighborhoods of northeastern cities. Roosevelt's vision of a hybrid and superior "American race," strengthened by war, would inspire the social, diplomatic, and economic policies of American liberals for decades. And yet, for all of its appeal to the civic principles of inclusion, this liberal legacy was grounded in "Anglo-Saxon" culture, making it difficult in particular for Jews and Italians and especially for Asians and African Americans to gain acceptance.

Gerstle weaves a compelling story of events, institutions, and ideas that played on perceptions of ethnic/racial difference, from the world wars and the labor movement to the New Deal and Hollywood to the Cold War and the civil rights movement. We witness the remnants of racial thinking among such liberals as FDR and LBJ; we see how Italians and Jews from Frank Capra to the creators of Superman perpetuated the New Deal philosophy while suppressing their own ethnicity; we feel the frustrations of African-American servicemen denied the opportunity to fight for their country and the moral outrage of more recent black activists, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, and Malcolm X.

Gerstle argues that the civil rights movement and Vietnam broke the liberal nation apart, and his analysis of this upheaval leads him to assess Reagan's and Clinton's attempts to resurrect nationalism. Can the United States ever live up to its civic creed? For anyone who views racism as an aberration from the liberal premises of the republic, this book is must reading.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Race, Politics, Sociology, American

472 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2001

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Virtually every issue we deal with as a country is, at its base, influenced by our view of national identity, and the nature of citizenship. Many authors have looked at this topic from a number of different perspectives. Gary Gilroy in Black Atlantic gave us a transnational view of black identity which transcended the borders of the nation-state. Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism talks about imagined communities bound together by limited borders and a belief in shared experience. Prasenjit Duara in Historicizing National Identity challenges us to look at nationalism using alternate views of time and space. Lizbeth Cohen in A Consumers’ Republic looks at the evolution of American national identity with consumerism as the central focus. Aiwha Ong in Flexible Citizenship takes a critical look at the view Americans have of what constitutes good citizenship and how that manifests itself in the way instruments of governmentality interacts with new immigrants, and Gary Gerstle, in the book I will be reviewing here, American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century, views civic and racial nationalism as the defining paradigm with which to look at the evolution of American citizenship.

Policies aimed at Immigration and social policy, drug and law enforcement, affirmative action, welfare policy, foreign policy and many other issues all can be traced to the ways we view citizenship and the struggle to maintain a uniquely American identity. Gary Gerstle has given us a uniquely valuable tool for looking at American nationalism and the meaning of citizenship, encompassing many of the theories proposed by the above authors, but looking at it through the dual lens of racial and civic nationalism. Gerstle structures his book using well known historical figures to illustrate his point, particularly in the person former president Theodore Roosevelt. In Gerstle’s narrative it is from this point that subsequent events can be referenced.

For Gerstle civic nationalism is ably represented by the views of historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. who, endorsing Israel Zangwill’s view of America as “God’s Crucible, where all races of Europe are melting and reforming!” (Gerstle, 3), relocated this transformative power not in God, “but in the nations core political ideals, in the American belief in the fundamental equality of all human beings, in every individual’s inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and a democratic government that derives its legitimacy from the people’s consent.” (Gerstle, 4) Since these principles were enshrined in the founding documents Gerstle notes that Schlesinger and others have “argued that they have marked something distinctive about the American people and their polity.” (Gerstle, 4) Mitigating the benefits of civic nationalism in Gerstle’s view is a racial nationalism that “conceives of America in ethno-racial terms, as people held together, as people held together by common blood and skin color and by an inherited fitness for self-government.” (Gerstle, 4) Gerstle notes that like civic nationalism, racial nationalism was also inscribed in our founding documents, particularly in the Constitution, which acknowledged the enslavement of Africans through its extension of the transatlantic slave trade, and definition of slaves as less than fully human via the 3/5 clause.

The mixture of these two types of nationalism has driven American governmental policy from 1890 through to the present. By looking at the inherent tensions between these two views in the lives of significant American leaders, from Theodore Roosevelt through to Bill Clinton, Gerstle is able to personalize and focus his analysis of how the intermixture of the two resulted in a surprisingly strong and uniquely American national identity. This identity, in his view, lasted until the 1960s when the civil rights movement and Vietnam War began the disintegration of this “imagined community,” into more granular identities of ethnicity, gender and class. Overlapping this is the effect of immigration policy and war on this mix mixture of racial and civic nationalism.

Gerstle identifies Theodore Roosevelt as the embodiment of this tension between civic and racial nationalism, the mixture of which allowed him to pursue progressive social and economic policies that benefited a significant portion of the population. Throughout the book Gerstle uses TR as the point of reference in his analysis of later developments. This is an effective device that gives the reader an easily understandable base to return to in order to put later events into context. At times he is a little over enthusiastic, as when he offers an opinion as to what Roosevelt would have thought of later developments. I’m not a fan of this kind of hypothetical speculation. While understand the purpose is to personalize the comparison in order to make it more easily accessible to the reader, I think a think a simple comparison to Roosevelt’s views and actions would have been more effective.

Theodore Roosevelt’s views as to what would make the American archetype had two components. First was his idealization of the rugged individualist; he idolized the Indian fighter, the frontiersman, and the cowboy. “The harsh wilderness,” he believed, “stripped people of their Old World ranks and privileges.” (Gerstle, 24) The harsh environment of the frontier produced conditions of rough equality and mutual dependence, and from this “a democratic ethos emerged.” (Gerstle, 24) Echoing Aiwha Ong’s views on the American view of an ideal citizen, Roosevelt believed that “self-reliance was perhaps the most important ingredient of success.” (Gerstle, 24)

The second component of Roosevelt’s idealized American archetype involved his view on racial hybridity. Theodore Roosevelt believed a controlled mixing of races would produce this ideal. “For Roosevelt the explanation for the rise of democracy…rested ultimately on the racial superiority of the English-speaking peoples.” (Gerstle, 24) He excluded non-Europeans from this mixture, believing that certain racial groups – eastern and southern European, Asian, and African – did not have the ability to function in a democratic society. Later on however, he began to soften his objection to the inclusion of eastern and southern Europeans, deciding they were a worthy addition to the mixture Roosevelt also came to respect the Japanese people and believed they too could be included.

In addition to his views on racial mixing and the importance of rugged individualism, Roosevelt was passionately devoted to civic nationalism. Quoting Michael Ignatieff, Gerstle describes Roosevelt as “someone who imagined the nation as a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values.” (Gerstle, 45) This at times produced contradictions between his actions and statements. Most notable was the way he treated the reputation of black cavalryman who had fought in the Spanish-American War. Immediately after the war he was effusive in his praise for their valor, but as time went by he began to denigrate and downplay their contribution. Thus, for all practical purposes “Roosevelt’s national community was open to anyone would could claim European origins or ancestry.” (Gerstle, 45) It certainly excluded African-Americans. In this and other examples, Roosevelt’s notions of the superiority of European racial stock conflicted with his views on civic nationalism. It was this type of conflict that Gerstle argues, has characterized American national identity since then.

Gerstle’s admiration for Theodore Roosevelt is clear. He concludes his analysis by noting that Roosevelt’s “civic nationalism was capacious and democratic.” (Gerstle, 79) He notes that Roosevelt wanted to open the country to all European immigrants, “even those who had come from the ‘inferior’ peoples of southern and eastern Europe.” (Gerstle, 79) He also notes that Roosevelt’s views on the role of government in the economy changed; abandoning the notion that individuals could, through simple hard work and dedication raise themselves out of poverty, he embraced the need for an activist government that protected the rights of disadvantaged peoples. The only price for this was that immigrants had to “jettison their Old World cultures and assimilate fully into American life.” (Gerstle, 79) Though these views would not carry him to the White House in 1912, Gerstle notes, his “program became the template upon which the twentieth-century liberalism took shape.” (Gerstle, 79)

Chapters four through six in many ways are the most interesting in this book. In them, Gerstle explores how the tensions between racial and civic nationalism manifest themselves in governmental policy. In particular, Gerstle focuses on immigration policy and war as the areas where this tension is seen most clearly. In this view war offers a way for the country to test itself, and to fight for its most important values. It also, as Theodore Roosevelt believed, reinvigorated the racial mixing he believed was necessary to keeping the nation vital. Immigration policy on the other hand, made visible who should and should not be eligible for citizenship. Thus, while Woodrow Wilson’s “peace without victory” policy flowed from civic nationalism, the military was still segregated. After the “war to end all wars,” America went through a period of severe immigration restriction, effectively barring southern and eastern Europeans and Asians, based on the belief that people from those regions were not fit to become American citizens. In the case of the Japanese the fear was the opposite, with many believing they were equal and possibly superior to Americans of strictly European descent. Since they could “be neither assimilated nor made subservient, they had to be excluded altogether from America.” (Gerstle, 112) Gerstle argues these restrictive immigration policies had the effect of stabilizing racial tensions in the country to the point that when Franklin Roosevelt assumed office there was very little attention paid to this aspect of nationalism. It was assumed most immigrants had achieved the desired “American-ness.” It also goes without saying, while racial tensions subsided as a public issue, it did not mean that racism and inequality were no longer a problem. In many ways this calm interim made later conflict more inevitable, and more violent.

More important however, was FDR’s reaction to the economic downturn of the Great Depression. Instead of merely restoring the morale of the nation after assuming office, he undertook an “experiment in state building without precedent.” (Gerstle, 128) Gerstle speculates that FDR was able to enact much of what Theodore Roosevelt had attempted because of the lessening of the tensions between civic and racial nationalistic impulses. Most important was the massive government intervention in the economy, which TR believed was necessary to secure the “social rights” of all citizens. Gerstle argues that FDR was successful in this. FDR also shared TR’s views on racial hybridity, though without the animus for supposedly inferior racial groups. And, like TR, Franklin Roosevelt was a “fervent nationalist who conceived of the nation as an entity nobler than any particular class, region, or interest.” (Gerstle, 132) With American entry into World War II civic nationalism reached an acme that has not been repeated since, even during the cold war. In a reaction to racial purity as practiced by the Nazi’s, America reveled in their diversity. But, as with the aftermath of World War I, racial nationalism rose from its pre-war slumber. Restrictions were again placed on immigration allegedly due to the number of refugees entering America, and with the segregation again of African American troops, the conflict between racial and civic nationalism was again on display.

Gerstle sees the cold war years that followed World War II as the last period in which the tension between racial and civic nationalism as maintaining the American “imagined community.” The threat of communism and fear of home-grown radicals served as the pretext for an increase of civic nationalism, even though in this case it served to deny some civil liberties. The U.S. again severely restricted immigration as Italian and Jewish immigrants were particularly discriminated against.

Finally he documents the deconstruction of “Rooseveltian Nationalism” with the start of the civil rights movement, and with America’s humiliation in Vietnam. Gerstle argues that racial groups who had once strived to achieve “whiteness,” were now abandoning an American nationalism in favor of ethnic or class identification. “The nationalist crisis occurred primarily in the realm of ideology, culture, and institutions. Many people who resided in America no longer imagined that they belonged to the same national community of that they shared a common set of ideals. The bonds of nationhood had weakened, and the Rooseveltian program of nation building that had created those bonds in the first place had been repudiated. A nationalist era that had begun in the early decades of the twentieth century had come to a stunning end.” (Gerstle, 345) He ends with speculation on how civic nationalism could be revived without the baggage that racial nationalism brought with it. In this he is skeptical, believing America will either opt for the “resurgence of a strong, solidaristic, and exclusionary national identity of the sort that has existed in the past; or, in the interests of tolerance and diversity, we will continue to opt for a weaker identity.” (Gerstle, 373)

In the end, Gerstle is fearful we will never recapture our civic nationalism without the baggage of racial nationalism, or we will become so tolerant and diverse that our national unity will be permanently weakened. In this I disagree. In my opinion it is not racial nationalism we need fear, but rather a religious one. In my experience racial identity, spawned by discrimination and racism, does not entirely divorce those adopting it from a desire for civic nationalism. The tolerance Gerstle fears, will not permanently result in a country of separate tribal identities, rather, it will reduce the need for division based on them. Tolerance and diversity implies an acceptance of differences that is the opposite of racism. Since it is that racism that spawned this racial tribalism in the first place, as the racism ebbs, so will the perceived need to identify more strongly by race than by nationality. My real fear is we are moving toward a religious nationalism, one that induces people to identify more strongly with a religious identification than a national one. Can anyone see what has been going on in Kentucky the last several weeks and not wonder if this is the case?

Increasingly, we see public policy, and the worth of public officials, being judged based upon their adherence to a religious credo. Over the last twenty years we have seen attempts to modify the constitution to discriminate against gays, to codify a religious view of how women control their bodies, to guarantee prayer in the schools, to codify expressions of religious belief in our national oaths, and to submit scientific curriculum to religious interpretations. All of this testifies to this fear. Our political campaigns have become dominated by this as well. As a presidential candidate John F. Kennedy was pressured to reassure the American public that his religious beliefs would not influence public policy. Forty-four years later, in 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was pressured to reassure the American public that his religious beliefs would influence public policy, particularly in relation to reproductive rights. Things have only accelerated since then with candidates increasingly asserting religious law comes before civil law.

While I disagree with his fear of racial identity, in terms of format and style I have rarely had such a pleasant read. Gerstle’s narrative is lively and flows easily from topic to topic. His use of well-known historical figures (TR, FDR, Wilson etc.) as touchpoints is very effective. He made very good use of his sources, though at times neglected to cite statements made that clearly required it. Also, as I mentioned earlier, projecting what dead people would think about specific modern events was unnecessary.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting, but ultimately disappointing history of the myth of the melting pot in America. One learns that the crucible of the title had room for only some Americans, mainly whites of a certain kind and that people of color or other ethnic origin had a wholly different experience in 20thC America. The history from the 60's to the present is glossed quickly and to me was wrong in many instances.

[Sasha (bahareads) · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Gary Gerstle lays a lot of blame on Theodore Rosevelt in American Crucible. Rosevelt is the catalyst for the current American Nationalism. Gerstle focuses on two types of nationalism Civic and Racial. He charts the rise, fall and intertwining of each one of them in American history. The dual nature of American Nationalism is traced from the Spanish-American War to the age of Obama. Observations of different Presidents' rhetoric or language and policies show the nations nationalistic views in that era. Gerstle shows why and how American nationalism is the way it is in the modern day.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well researched, thought provoking book that keeps the reader engaged. It balances the concepts of the sociology of race, political sciences and history in concise ways. I am particularly drawn to their decision to use Teddy Roosevelt as a jumping point to discuss a radicalized nation. I wonder how this story may have been interpreted differently had we started earlier in history. Either way, I love this book!

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

Two conflicting notions of nationalism have shaped American identity during the twentieth century: a civic nationalism founded on equality and the preservation of rights and a racial nationalism in which the population is held together by common blood. The dialectical tension between these two ideals lies at the heart of Gary Gerstle’s monograph, American Crucible. Much like E. J. Hobsbawm’s analysis of the development of democratic and ethnic nationalism in the European context (Nations and Nationalism since 1780), Gerstle traces how America’s dual natured nationalism transformed along political lines, traversing both sides of the spectrum from the 1890s to the end of the twentieth century.

Theodore Roosevelt was a man who fully embodied these nationalist tensions who here serves as a rhetorical model for understanding how civic and racially-based ideologies fought for dominance in American society. While European ethnic (völkisch) nationalism was concerned with purity, Roosevelt’s racialism seeks to establish hybridity in order to breed a strong race of American citizens. However, he remained a strong believer in the ideal of civic equality and, as a Progressive, extended it to the socio-economic sphere through calls for the regulation of capitalism and the establishment of state welfare programs. In addition to socio-political equality and race-based nationalism, two additional themes that will carry throughout this study are established during Roosevelt’s era—the role of war and immigration policy in both reinforcing and challenging the aforementioned visions of American identity. Gerstle’s use of Roosevelt as representative for these two conflicting national convictions effectively demonstrates his argument that while race plays a role in American society, it is not “at the root of every expression of American nationalism” (12). He goes on to say that “this view” held by many current scholars, “ignores the strength and autonomy of the civic nationalist tradition” (12). Indeed, by demonstrating how these two beliefs can be so strongly held to within the mind of a single man, Gerstle illustrates how they could have existed side-by-side in modern society without one simply overriding the other.

In the decades that followed Theodore Roosevelt’s time at the forefront of American politics, war and immigration policy served the dual purposed of overcoming divisions among the population in democratic, inclusionary ways while at the same time reifying the importance of exclusionary racial hierarchies within society. The First World War, while it defined Americans in opposition to the European Other, accomplished little in the way of promoting the nation as a melting-pot. Instead, harsh immigration restrictions established at the time, targeted against Southern and Eastern Europeans, became a site onto which Americans projected their fears about the state’s international enemies. It was not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration that all facets of the Rooseveltian nation began to be realized. The Great Depression allowed FDR to experiment with an expansion of the state in order to accomplish the socio-economic parity envisioned in the Progressive era—these programs brought poor immigrants into the warm embrace of their ‘Nordic father’ inviting them into the nation. New Deal policies also encouraged the deployment of civic nationalist discourse as a language of radical protest, thereby justifying unions and other left-leaning institutions as statements of American patriotism rather than attributing them to the subversive international conspiracies of the Cold War era. Gerstle characterizes World War II as a ‘race war’ during which time racial divisions (prejudice against certain European immigrants and African Americans) began to break down in collective service of a greater cause—preservation of the nation. Despite advances, racial equality was nowhere near being accomplished, and soon the hypocrisy of an egalitarian civic creed existing in tandem with racial discrimination would lead to a rupture in the nation’s delicate balance.

Gerstle identifies a caesura in the civil rights movement of the 1960s in combination with the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement upset the legal foundation of racialized nationalism through the abolition of segregation, but even though its underpinnings had collapsed, racist sentiments persisted in the minds of many Americans. In the face of this persistent racism, some African Americans lost faith in the civic creed, and rather than use the ideal of equality to battle prejudice, brought new life to race-based identity by supporting a separatist, black supremacist movement. With the integrity of the democratic principles and of the nation itself enfeebled, the Vietnam War did little to bring Americans together. Instead, this ill-advised conflict delivered a final blow to civic ideals through its morally ambiguous origins and the nation’s failure at its conclusion. Following this rupture, Gerstle asserts, the once unified nation became atomized by pluralism and a deeply cynical mood pervaded the social atmosphere.

While many of the arguments Gerstle presents prove convincing, one wonders whether the sixties and seventies really define a kind of endpoint for the Rooseveltian nation. Have racial tensions and the vision of hybridity (embodied in the symbol of the melting pot) really receded to the background of discussions on American national identity? Furthermore, the American state persists and has not literally collapsed into a series of regionally defined separatist nations. Evidently, the dream of civic nationalism, though bruised and somewhat disfigured in the public’s mind, remains a compelling means of maintaining this vast and populous imagined community. Published shortly before 9/11, one wonders whether in a revised edition this date might prove the end point of the long twentieth century—the moment at which the duality of the Rooseveltian nation, rather than receding, was significantly transformed. In spite of the questions which this research inspires, many of which could not have been forseen in the time it was written, American Crucible is a fascinating study whose insightful, nuanced account of American nationalism is sure to provoke meaningful discussion of identity in contemporary society.

[Grant Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoroughly researched and interesting look into how attitudes and policy relating to immigration into the United States changed over time. While somewhat of a long book, the narrative offers insight not only into the changes in immigration beliefs, but the evolution of political views from the early 20th century into the modern day. Gerstle clearly explains the causes behind everything he discusses and this greatly improved my knowledge of American immigration and politics alike. My only real criticism of the book is that in the last chapter, (which is only in the most updated version) is sickeningly left-wing in its outlook. Gerstle suddenly transforms from an author who seems neutral in his presentation of political beliefs to someone who suddenly is committed to conspiracy theories about Obama and Trump. He gets caught up in generalistic criticism of Obama (which he refutes, without offering counter evidence) and then punishes Trump for flaws he seems to project onto the former President, such as anti-Semitism and racism. Again, without citing evidence. You would likely be better off picking up the book without the added chapter, since much of it is lacking in factual discussion, and opt for the original version. Which I thought could be enjoyed by a wider audience, contains more analysis, and is largely unbiased in its presentation of materials.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I don't quite agree with every aspect of Gerstle's tidy argument, this is an impressive and thought-provoking history of the intertwined and competing notions of race and identity in 20th century US history. Gerstle argues that there are two traditions of American nationalism that compete and to some extent intermingle: civic nationalism and racial nationalism. Civic nationalism is the idea that the American nation has a longstanding liberal creed (individual rights, economic competition, democratic government, rule of law, equality under the law, etc) that any American can become part of with minimal respect to race. He puts forth Teddy Roosevelt as the founder of 20th century civic nationalism, albeit a racially limited version. TR believed that Americans of white European stock could be melded together in crucibles, especially war, that would break down their ethnic differences and unite them in manly struggle and under a common creed. TR thought that some racial groups, especially Asians and blacks, were simply not capable of being forged into a common American citizen, so he left them out of the American civic nation. Of course, civic nationalism evolved throughout the 20th century to the point, possibly as early as the New Deal, where leading liberals like FDR and LBJ were willing to extend the membership in the nation to any race that adopted the American creed. The obvious flip side of civic nationalism was the imperative of assimilation. In order to join the American civic nation, ethnically and racially different people had to abandon most if not all of their culture and past identities/allegiances. Gerstle portrays civic nationalism as broadly on the rise from the 1900's to the 1960's, although it was not always dominant and always co-existed with some form of racial nationalism.

Racial nationalism is the idea that America is a white nation that must control who is allowed in, who mixes with whom, and what rights and wealth non-whites have. It posits that non-white races are impure, unintelligent, and incapable of the individual responsibility needed to join the American nation as full citizens. The heyday of racial nationalism in America was the 1920's, especially the immigration quota system that set stringent limits if not straight-up bans on many ethnic groups, especially Asians. Americans like to think that civic nationalism is our defining paradigm and racial nationalism the aberration, but Gerstle shows this only became semi-true in the mid-20th century and that racial nationalism has always coexisted and competed with civic nationalism. For example, the New Deal and WWII witnessed the emergence of Civil Rights as a national issue, a significant black voting bloc in the Democratic Party, and the federal government beginning to take sides on issues of racism and segregation. However, this was also the time of conservative resurgence in defense of Jim Crow, inner-city white resistance to black mobility, and a virtual race war against the Japanese.

The climax of Gerstle's book comes in the 1960's, when the Civil Rights movement, even in its moments of triumph against racial nationalism in 1964-1965, abandoned the civic nationalist creed that had underlined MLK's ideology in favor of black nationalism. More radical activists increasingly saw the civic nationalist creed as hollow because liberals were too incremental in their approach to racial and social justice. They also saw the civic nationalist concept of the melting pot as oppressive because it sought to erase ethnic and cultural differences. New ethnic/racial activists celebrated these differences and increasingly viewed their society as corrupt, beyond redemption, and inherently racist. Racial nationalism enjoyed a partial revival as part of the conservative revival of the 70's and 80's, although Gerstle portrays this movement as far more racist than they really were (For instance, his main piece of evidence for Reagan and Bush's racism is the Willie Horton ad, which doesn't actually say that Horton raped a white woman and beat a white man, although Gerstle claims it did). The result of this sea change in the 1960's is that racial nationalism has been more or less fully discredited and civic nationalism has been abandoned in favor of multiculturalism, leaving behind a more fragmented society, I have two problems with this partially valid argument: 1. Gerstle only really talks about the views of intellectuals regarding civic nationalism. He doesn't show that ordinary people have actually given up on these ideas. For example, protestors against recent police actions against blacks largely appeal to civic nationalist ideas of equality under the law, rights, and black membership in the nation. 2. Gerstle portrays the 60's as an explosion of criticism against civic nationalism as a hollow and oppressive ideology and a surge of ethnic/racial pride. I'm sure tons of people thought these things already long before the 60's, but lacked the power, confidence, and safety to actually say them and live them out.

If the civic nationalist creed has been lost, as Gerstle claims, that would be a true shame. A hybrid of civic nationalism's best value (the idea that anyone can become American by accepting a certain set of values and practices) can certainly be reconciled with a celebration of diversity. I still think that Americans are united on a common set of values and that Gerstle focuses too much on intellectual changes. However, this book did make me think about the difficulties of creating unity while appreciating difference, silencing, and oppression. Does the current academic focus on oppression on the bases of race, ethnicity, gender, and other factors encourage fragmentation and bitterness in our society and make unity impossible? On the flip side, what is the value of unity if it doesn't take into account injustices and inequalities? Makes me want to teach a US history class around the question of what unites and divides Americans given that the current academic and teaching focus is currently on division. Gerstle does historians and students a great service here by showing the bases of both division and unity, even if he's a bit more pessimistic than me.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly readable synthesis of the tensions between American freedom and white American racism. Gerstle touches on iconic instances of U.S. history, much reported in the historiographic literature, but does well to identify the shifting levels of inclusive or exclusionary rhetoric in our culture. The readable, jargon-free prose makes this book exceptional for undergraduates and for the general public (this is one of those "cross-over" books). This edition features a new chapter on the age of Barack Obama, which Gerstle describes as a brief respite of civic nationalism amid a resurgent trend of racist rhetoric.

[Alec Lurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book is about how Theodore Roosevelt’s dueling perspectives on American culture (civic nationalism v. racial nationalism) have shaped much of 20th century liberal politics, Gerstle accurately predicted the resurgence of white nationalism that we have seen since 2015. There are certainly some gaps in Gerstle’s analysis. He skips over the Klan of the 1920s and generally ignores the changing role of women in politics, but his framework for understanding the political rhetoric of the last 120 years is extremely useful.

[Julian Pritchard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good. Gerstle distinguishes between “civic nationalism” (good) and “racial nationalism” (bad). This book is well-researched. The strongest parts are about the New Deal era, and the chapters on the second half of the twentieth century are a bit weaker, particularly on the 1990s.

At times, Gerstle praises “civic nationalism” too much for my taste and seems unable to see how deeply linked it is to racial nationalism in the U.S. Overall it is informative and enjoyable.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 4 out of 5]

surprisingly readable and enjoyable, lays bare the racism at the heart of the American Dream. While most of the points it makes seem convincing, it does not go into as much detail as the reader would like

[Christina DeBenedictis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by one of my professors, had to read for my capstone course. Gary Gerstle is smart and good.

[Jela · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gary Gerstle, professor of History at the University of Maryland and author of many works in the area of American Studies, such as Liberty, Equality and Power has written a comprehensive history of the evolution and the dichotomy of American nationalism in his book American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century. Gerstle argues that two distinct and opposing forms of American nationalism, the “civic” and the “racial” contribute to the shaping of American history and that each of these forms have been instrumental in the formation of today’s American society.

The first of these forms, sometimes called the “American Creed,” or “civic nationalism” the term Gerstle prefers, is the “belief in the fundamental equality of all human beings, in every individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in a democratic government that derives its legitimacy from the people’s consent” (4). Gerstle calls the second form “racial nationalism,” which is the idea that America is envisioned in “ethnoracial terms, as a people held together by a common blood, skin color and by an inherited fitness for self-government” (4). Racial nationalism is an internal extension of the idea of the “other,” meaning that while there is the myth of equality and liberty for all men; races still defines the people.

Gerstle spends the first half of the book focusing on the political, nationalistic and racial ideologies of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt in what he calls the “Rooseveltian Nation,” where the “civic” and the “racial” nationalistic ideals come together in a contradictory manner. Gerstle demonstrates to the reader that even though these great liberal leaders were espousing a doctrine of opportunity and equality to all men regardless of race or nationality, they also were also of the belief that theirs was the superior race or that it was necessary to force immigrants to “Americanize,” to become part of the melting pot myth.

Using many examples from the life and times of Theodore Roosevelt to make his point, one stands out as the perfect example of this contradiction. During the Kettle-San Juan Hill, battles the Negro Ninth and Tenth cavalries proved to be a major asset, showing much courage and heroism and while TR showed them the respect with a toast at the end of the battle, he all but omitted their importance to the battle in his written accounts of the battle. These contradictions followed TR into his presidency; he did much to expand the rights of immigrants from Europe, even those from Eastern Europe who had previously been the focus of racial violence, but he signed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barring Chinese immigrants from entering the United States.

The second half of the book, Gerstle is preparing us for the death of the Rooseveltian Nation during the 1960’s and after the Civil Rights movement. It is not that the second half of the book is not as important to his argument, but it seemed to serve as a demonstration of the ebb and flow of the war between “civic” nationalism and “racial” nationalism. Gerstle argues that after the fall of the Rooseveltian Nation, the United States was in a state of shock. Civic nationalism diminished and America’s patriotism waned and out of this grew the multiculturalism that we see into today’s society.

While the book is well written and informative, shedding light on American nationalism, specifically concerning the Roosevelts and their nation, I believe that Gerstle stops too short in his argument by only including race as an opposition to civic nationalism. He fails to include broader subjects, such as gender, social class, and religion, ethnic and cultural divisions that are so important to American society and play just as important a role in American Nationalism.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very interesting though I found it a little sprawling-- it is really two books in one (in my mind anyway). I liked the analysis of how racial politics has changed the way Americans consider civic nationalism and what being civic minded actually means in the US.

I didn't know too much about Roosevelt's vision for America before I started and "American Crucible" made me realize just how critical he was for setting up some of the major debates in 20th Century politics.

Highly recommended, but be prepared to take notes. There is a lot of material here.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great text for studying race and immigration relations in the US. Starts with Teddy Roosevelt and progresses through the modern era.

[Amz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow.

[AskHistorians]

A good general overview of race, ethnicity and immigration during the 20th Century.