Summary Of Theodore Rooseveltian Nation By Gary Gerstle

1523 Words7 Pages

Anwar Aliy Essay #3 According to Gary Gerstle, Theodore Roosevelt was probably the most decisive historical figure of early 20th century America and its later developments. Throughout the book Gerstle brought up the importance of Rooseveltian Nation and its legacy in the shaping of American 20th century nation building and nationalist discourse. The Rooseveltian Nation, which paradoxically combines racial and civic nationalism together, has flourished from the first decade of the 20th century through its mid-century heyday until its collapse in the 1960s. The Rooseveltian Nation has had significant influence to shape and define American society. According to Gerstle the crisis …show more content…

They advocated “soft multiculturalism” to take its place. Their idea was to celebrate different ethnicities while still coming together as one nation. They hoped that cultural diversity can be compatible with American national pride as long as the nation allows for a wide range of ethnic and racial difference. As Gerstle puts it in his book suggesting that this soft multiculturalism does not “eliminate of all forms of ethnic and cultural difference” and “it acknowledges the value of diversity within a national community” (Gerstle, 367). By the mid-1990s Bill Clinton emerged as one of those people who commits to affirmative action and emphasizes citizen's loyalty and obligation to America country at the same …show more content…

Gary Gerstle divided multiculturalism into two category, one he called it “hard multiculturalism” and the other “soft multiculturalism”. Both this have subcategory of their own. When comparing Gary Gerstle and Assata Shakur they both have two different idea. In his book Gary Gerstle criticizes “hard multiculturalism” a lot. In his opinion he thinks hard multiculturalism will make the nation weaker and it could never be achieved. Gerstle disagrees with the political position of hard multiculturalism that the American Nation is hopeless and without values at all. That is, he insists that loyalty and patriotism to nationalist ideals is