The South Islands
17-10-2005, 02:32
In case any one would like to see it, this is my latest essay. If you see anything, don't be afraid to bring to to my attention.
Socioeconomic Influences on the American “Underdog” Mentality
America, and Americans, has always held an “Underdog” mentality. This mentality began with the early settlers, and evolved with the development of the colonies, and the early United States. With the rise of the middle class in turn of the century America, this mentality has declined in influence to the American psyche. As the growing plurality of middle class Americans began to strive for the upper classes, the underdog mentality became counterproductive. This new attitude towards the underdog is apparent in the legal system. As the American middle class increasingly identifies its economic interests with the upper classes, the culture's diminishing sympathies for the underdog become visible in the legal system.
America began its history as the proverbial underdog. The early European settlers endured enormous hardship in the first few years of life in the American colonies. In the American Revolution, the Americans were again the underdog. They had very little chance of winning their independence from the most powerful empire in the world at that time. Yet they persevered. They became the ultimate underdogs of the enlightenment world.
This underdog mentality was visible in an early Supreme Court case, Fletcher v. Peck. This case dealt with the Contract Clause of the constitution, which states that the States cannot interfere with a legitimate contract. The Georgia legislature, with many legislators bribed, sold seventy five million acres of land west of the Yazoo River to a group of land speculators for far below market price. Many citizens were outraged. Some residents of Augusta “actually marched on the capital, determined to lynch the corrupt lawmakers” (Irons 113). After the next election, where almost all incumbents ejected, the new legislature nullified the contract. By now, the initial companies that purchased the land had sold it, the land now being in the hands of mostly farmers. With the land now divided into small parcels in the hands of farmers, this could perceived as the big bad government, “the Man”, against the small farmers, just trying to scrape a living off their land that they had bought legitimately. When the Supreme Court struck down the nullification of the contract, it was seen as a victory by the underdog, persevering through legal troubles, to make a living for himself.
As the new United States expanded westward, the underdog mentality went westward, as well. The new settlers of the west considered themselves underdogs just as the early European colonists did. They endured hardships, ranging from disease, to weather, to Indian attack. They were the new underdogs of America.
Then, near the turn of the century, things began to change. Americans began to lose the underdog mentality that had so defined their forefathers. People began having less sympathy for the struggle of the underdog against the “Man”. The primary reason for this diminishing underdog mentality in the American psyche was the rise of the middle class.
With the rise of the middle class, the middle managers and the supervisors, there was little room for the underdog mentality. Previously, the primary goal of the majority of people was to rise from the lower class to the middle class. Now, with the increasing numbers of the middle class, the goal was to rise from the middle class to the upper class, the owners and presidents. To facilitate this, the previous underdogs had to become the “Man”. There rise to the upper class could ill afford the interference of an economic underdog.
While this shift mainly influenced personal values, it also influenced the American legal system, and the perception of its rulings. The prime example of this is the infamous McDonalds “Hot Coffee” case, where an older woman won 2.9 million dollars after she suffered 3rd degree burns on her groin and thighs from an abnormally hot cup of coffee. This woman was an eighty-year-old retired department store clerk, a stereotypical underdog, going against the “Man” of the McDonalds Corporation. However, “Public opinion (was) squarely on the side of McDonalds. Polls (had) shown a large majority of Americans… to be outraged at the verdict” (Gerlin A8).
While the underdog attitude that defined American life in the past is certainly not dead, it is diminished. The “Man” is no longer the big, bad organization that we strive against; it is who provides for us. We, the middle class, have forgotten our roots in the working class. Instead of striving against the “Man”, we work for him, all in the name of a better life. While striving for a better life is admirable, it is certainly not worth the cost of our origins.
Socioeconomic Influences on the American “Underdog” Mentality
America, and Americans, has always held an “Underdog” mentality. This mentality began with the early settlers, and evolved with the development of the colonies, and the early United States. With the rise of the middle class in turn of the century America, this mentality has declined in influence to the American psyche. As the growing plurality of middle class Americans began to strive for the upper classes, the underdog mentality became counterproductive. This new attitude towards the underdog is apparent in the legal system. As the American middle class increasingly identifies its economic interests with the upper classes, the culture's diminishing sympathies for the underdog become visible in the legal system.
America began its history as the proverbial underdog. The early European settlers endured enormous hardship in the first few years of life in the American colonies. In the American Revolution, the Americans were again the underdog. They had very little chance of winning their independence from the most powerful empire in the world at that time. Yet they persevered. They became the ultimate underdogs of the enlightenment world.
This underdog mentality was visible in an early Supreme Court case, Fletcher v. Peck. This case dealt with the Contract Clause of the constitution, which states that the States cannot interfere with a legitimate contract. The Georgia legislature, with many legislators bribed, sold seventy five million acres of land west of the Yazoo River to a group of land speculators for far below market price. Many citizens were outraged. Some residents of Augusta “actually marched on the capital, determined to lynch the corrupt lawmakers” (Irons 113). After the next election, where almost all incumbents ejected, the new legislature nullified the contract. By now, the initial companies that purchased the land had sold it, the land now being in the hands of mostly farmers. With the land now divided into small parcels in the hands of farmers, this could perceived as the big bad government, “the Man”, against the small farmers, just trying to scrape a living off their land that they had bought legitimately. When the Supreme Court struck down the nullification of the contract, it was seen as a victory by the underdog, persevering through legal troubles, to make a living for himself.
As the new United States expanded westward, the underdog mentality went westward, as well. The new settlers of the west considered themselves underdogs just as the early European colonists did. They endured hardships, ranging from disease, to weather, to Indian attack. They were the new underdogs of America.
Then, near the turn of the century, things began to change. Americans began to lose the underdog mentality that had so defined their forefathers. People began having less sympathy for the struggle of the underdog against the “Man”. The primary reason for this diminishing underdog mentality in the American psyche was the rise of the middle class.
With the rise of the middle class, the middle managers and the supervisors, there was little room for the underdog mentality. Previously, the primary goal of the majority of people was to rise from the lower class to the middle class. Now, with the increasing numbers of the middle class, the goal was to rise from the middle class to the upper class, the owners and presidents. To facilitate this, the previous underdogs had to become the “Man”. There rise to the upper class could ill afford the interference of an economic underdog.
While this shift mainly influenced personal values, it also influenced the American legal system, and the perception of its rulings. The prime example of this is the infamous McDonalds “Hot Coffee” case, where an older woman won 2.9 million dollars after she suffered 3rd degree burns on her groin and thighs from an abnormally hot cup of coffee. This woman was an eighty-year-old retired department store clerk, a stereotypical underdog, going against the “Man” of the McDonalds Corporation. However, “Public opinion (was) squarely on the side of McDonalds. Polls (had) shown a large majority of Americans… to be outraged at the verdict” (Gerlin A8).
While the underdog attitude that defined American life in the past is certainly not dead, it is diminished. The “Man” is no longer the big, bad organization that we strive against; it is who provides for us. We, the middle class, have forgotten our roots in the working class. Instead of striving against the “Man”, we work for him, all in the name of a better life. While striving for a better life is admirable, it is certainly not worth the cost of our origins.