It can be said that since its inception, America has been a country of negligence. The founding fathers ignored the issue of slavery in order to unite the colonies, and presidents ignored the native peoples so that they could expand their own power. However, as the Gilded Age came to an end, America began to feel the folly of its negligence. Industrialization left people of all classes feeling alienated and powerless, and as a result people could no longer ignore the universal problems it created. Thus, the Progressive Era marked America’s surge in reform spirit, and while reform was rarely successful, there was an unanimous intent for societal change. In that way, the word “progressive” does not imply actual progress, but instead means an
…show more content…
In that way, they argue that the era should instead be the Negligent Era. Specifically, these critics cite negligence towards minorities. According to them, women, blacks, and more were all neglected by progressive reformers, thus proving that progressives did not truly have good intentions. And while it is doubtless that Progressive reform occasionally hurt minorities, it is important to distinguish between intentional negligence and unintentional ignorance, especially in a time period defined by intentions. When examples of “negligence” are examined more closely, each has the Progressive intent at its core. For example, segregation was actually the result of good intentions and ignorance. Progressives used segregation not to ignore racial issues, but rather to protect minorities. As McGerr writes, “segregation actually drew on basic progressive values and aims. [...] Progressives turned to segregation as a way to preserve weaker groups, such as African-Americans and Native Americans, facing brutality and even annihilation”. Segregation literally purged white society of the offending blacks. It would give whites their “pure” society and give blacks a safer one. In reality, whites felt the government had not punished blacks enough, and blacks thought the government had not protected them enough. As a result, tensions only increased. Regardless, segregation was Progressive because it was meant to protect blacks, even if it ultimately was ignorant of issue’s
In that way, they argue that the era should instead be the Negligent Era. Specifically, these critics cite negligence towards minorities. According to them, women, blacks, and more were all neglected by progressive reformers, thus proving that progressives did not truly have good intentions. And while it is doubtless that Progressive reform occasionally hurt minorities, it is important to distinguish between intentional negligence and unintentional ignorance, especially in a time period defined by intentions. When examples of “negligence” are examined more closely, each has the Progressive intent at its core. For example, segregation was actually the result of good intentions and ignorance. Progressives used segregation not to ignore racial issues, but rather to protect minorities. As McGerr writes, “segregation actually drew on basic progressive values and aims. [...] Progressives turned to segregation as a way to preserve weaker groups, such as African-Americans and Native Americans, facing brutality and even annihilation”. Segregation literally purged white society of the offending blacks. It would give whites their “pure” society and give blacks a safer one. In reality, whites felt the government had not punished blacks enough, and blacks thought the government had not protected them enough. As a result, tensions only increased. Regardless, segregation was Progressive because it was meant to protect blacks, even if it ultimately was ignorant of issue’s