|
The perspective this article present is the reaction of society - a pendulum. I tend to think of these trends as driven by economic expansion and followed by social growth. For example the European immigration to the East, the expansion to the West, building the Railroad, the Irish famine, and growing American Imperialism can also be tracked against these times. Each of these era's was supported by immigration to meet the goal of government and business. In each case the growing expansion was replaced by a more rigid stablizing power. So the social change was a reaction to a mission accomplished (the railroad was complete). Whether it was to stake an imperial claim on the land, or grow the economy people were given an incentive to create dramatic social change. I would need to see this paradym mapped against an older more stable country, LOL.
The Indians did not initially shoot the settlers, the miners did not intially hate the Chinese, the pioneer was often lost as society established more competitive envionments and social reform the people being driven out were the 'unrefine rich'. The times of 'civic' reform seem to correlate to the expansion of a social group and politicians looking for a scapegoat to target social woes; the Chinese exclusion act, Indian wars (a railroad won mile by mile in war). These weren't the acts of individuals making independent decision but the 'tipping point' of mob change. What 'matters' is very subjective and in retrospect isn't always about change. I worry that we will matter less only because human life seems less valuable in a global world.
|