The Nature of the New World - Essay Example

?The Nature of the New World Benjamin Franklin and Washington Irving represent two of the great intellectuals of American history. Separated by a generation, Franklin and Irving both published letters – titled “Information to Those Who Would Remove to America” and “Traits of Indian Character”, respectively – which differently portrayed the American public. In these letters, Franklin generally spoke to the modest and hard-working nature of Americans, while Irving spoke to the imperialist and naive nature of Americans toward Native Americans. Their letters contained very different themes and messages, but within these letters can be parsed out fundamentally different views of American culture and heritage. Where Franklin generally praises the American sense of equal opportunity, especially as opposed to the lack of equal opportunity in Europe, Irving rather eloquently criticizes the lack of equality and opportunity afforded to Indians, by Americans. Although these two great Americans views are separated by a generation, their messages are essentially timeless, for the emphasis that they place on certain virtues of character. Benjamin Franklin’s letter is written expressly to Europeans who are interested in moving to America. He writes to them because he believes that they have a mistaken view of what life in America is truly like. It appears to Franklin that many Europeans believe Americans to be very wealthy and in want of talented businessmen, scientists, artisans, and tradespeople to pay for their work. Europeans also appear to generally believe that, as “Strangers of Birth”, they will be greatly appreciated and respected, upon relocating to America, since they will be considered fellow countrymen. Franklin criticizes the speculation that Americans will reward emigrating Europeans with paid travel, free land, slaves, farm tools, and cattle, calling these notions “wild imaginations”. According to Franklin, America is not a land of great riches, nor is it a land of little wealth; instead, he writes, “a general happy mediocrity … prevails”. This mediocrity prevails, in part, because most people are farmers, craftsmen, or merchants, who cannot neither afford to live idly nor to spend money on luxurious things. The middle-class character of the economy is further increased, because the few geniuses who are born in America usually relocate to Europe where their great talents can gain them greater rewards (greater than Americans can afford). Knowledge of literature or mathematics was, during this time, greatly appreciated and wanted in America. However, Franklin notes that nine universities were already running and staffed by capable professors. Since America will soon be producing its own industry of academics, Franklin argues that even well-respected academics won’t be in such high demand that they are afforded great wealth. Even worse are the prospects for workers trained in civil office or the bureaucracy of government, since America has too little wealth for large or superfluous government. With the wars being at an end, military officers have similarly-bleak prospects of finding good work. Central to Franklin’s characterization of Americans is their attitude toward other people, “[not] what is he? But, what can he do?” Here, Franklin expresses a view of America than diverges significantly from the view of America espoused by Irving; where Franklin portrays the Americans as exceptionally concerned with personal ability over personal heritage, Irving will portray Americans as exceptionally concerned with personal heritage over personal ability (discussed below). It is Franklin’s opinion that, although Europeans place emphasis on the quality of a person’s birth (i.e., his or her national heritage), Americans have little regard for a person’s national roots. In fact, Franklin’s choice of words seem to indicate American disdain for those who do not engage in productive labor, writing that Americans value a family-history of labor, rather than a history of “Gentlemen, doing nothing of Value, but living idly on the Labour of others … and otherwise good for nothing…” In essence, writes Franklin, “America is the Land of Labour”. Importantly, Benjamin Franklin contends that the American way of life is fundamentally different from the European way of life, because Americans have economic choices that do not exist in Europe. If traders charge too much for an imported pair of shoes, Franklin contends, Americans will simply buy from a local shoemaker; likewise, if shoemakers charge too much, Americans will buy from traders. Writing to would-be capitalist investors, who would aim to create large industries capable of importing or producing anything the American people might desire, Franklin explains the tendency for American governments to not want to encourage a market that exists beyond the means of its resources. Explaining the common refusal by U.S. governments to subsidize private industry, he writes, “[it has been the] Principle, that, if the Country is ripe for the Manufacture, [then] it may be carried on by private Persons to Advantage.” In all of these examples, Franklin depicts an image of America, different from Europe, in its humility, its modesty, its economic opportunity and flexibility, its hard-working ethic which does not value birth heritage, and its moral character. Franklin’s respect for the American way of life is apparent. He ends his letter, writing, “…the Divine Being seems to have manifested his Approbation of the mutual Forbearance and Kindness with which the different Sects treat each other, by the remarkable Prosperity with which He has been pleased to favour the whole Country.” Perhaps the single largest difference between America and Europe, in Franklin’s view, is disparity of wealth. Indeed, Franklin’s vision of the new country would be considered romantic, in the modern American economic climate. Writing nearly a generation later, Washington Irving’s view of American culture is decidedly different. Irving begins his letter by disputing the common view of the Native American person as a savage, stating that the Native American has more “sympathies and affections than are usually ascribed to him.” He goes on to claim that Native Americans have been doubly-wronged by white men. In the first place, much of their hereditary possessions have been lost through frivolous warfare. In the second, the quality of their culture and personal character has been tarnished by bigoted writers with interests that, presumably, take priority to an honest opinion of Native Americans. Irving does not spare criticism, stating that American settlers found it “easier to exterminate than to civilize … to vilify than to discriminate”. The difference, between Washington Irving and Benjamin Franklin, in attitudes toward American virtue and equality of people is immediately apparent. Franklin opined the American attitude to be based on what a person is capable of, instead of where he or she comes from; Irving, here, contends the opposite. Irving continues by claiming that Native American rights have neither been appreciated nor respected by American settlers. Writing a full generation after Franklin, Irving further claims that this attitude toward Native Americans has not significantly changed. It is an attitude which is exacerbated by the present state of Native Americans, who have often become “corrupted and enfeebled by the vices of society, without being benefitted by its civilization.” By stating that “Society has advanced upon them like one of those withering airs that will sometimes breed desolation over a whole region of fertility”, Irving is explicitly condemning the American settlers and culture as guilty of causing the destruction of Native American virtue. The difference in opinion between Irving and Franklin becomes obvious, now. He writes, “Poverty, repining and hopeless poverty, a canker of the mind unknown in savage life, corrodes [the Native American] spirit and blights every free and noble quality of their natures.” This observation is in stark opposition to Franklin’s observation of America as a land of economic equality, where mediocrity of wealth prevails. Irving continues, writing that wealth exists all around the Native Americans but that they are systematically excluded from it. Perhaps the most important difference of view points on America, between Irving and Franklin, relates to their concept of American morality. Whereas Franklin asserts that America is full of great piety and respect for religious behavior, Irving states, “the white man abounds in laws of religion, morals, and manners, but how many does he violate?” Indeed, whereas Franklin claims that Americans care more for what a person can do than for who he or she is, Irving makes a compelling argument against the lack of open-mindedness that Americans display toward Native Americans. He writes, “[The white men] seldom treat them with that confidence and frankness which are indispensable to real friendship…” Irving expounds at great length on the ways in which American settlers had ravaged Native American culture and property, while concurrently expecting respect and loyalty from the Native Americans. Ultimately, the resounding difference between Franklin and Irving is rooted in their perception of the attitude of America; where Franklin sees open-mindedness and respect for a person’s capability over their heritage, Irving sees close-mindedness and exclusive behavior toward a people, the Native Americans, which he believes to be as virtuous as the white men. Irving does not convey a strong opinion toward the economic virtue of America, nor does he speak at any length about how the Europeans may have viewed, differently, the virtue of Native American character. Still, from their expositions on the attitude of Americans toward non-Americans (including, in this case, Native Americans), we can deduce a surprisingly large difference of opinion on the open-mindedness of Americans toward foreigners. It may be that time and changing economic circumstances led to a changing of American sentiment toward Native Americans, or perhaps the Native Americans have been systematically discriminated against since the beginning of American colonizers. In his letter from 1782, Benjamin Franklin articulated an important difference in attitudes between Americans and Europeans toward people of dissimilar births. One generation later, Washington Irving disputed this claim, chastising the American culture for first destroying and then systematically excluding Native Americans from the “Land of Labour”. Irving went on to predict, correctly, that the destruction of culture and property would extend beyond eastern Native American tribes and into midwestern and western tribes, across the entirety of America. His predictions were sound. It is imperative for modern American people, then, to take with utmost seriousness the writings of cultural critics, especially when those views conflict, as in the timeless case of Franklin and Irving. Works Cited Franklin, Benjamin. The Writings of Benjamin Franklin. Edited by Albert Henry Smith. 10 vols. New York: Macmillan Co., 1905-7. Irving, Washington. The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Read More