Transcript for:
Culture and Politics in the 1920s America

Hey there and welcome back to Heimler’s  History. We’ve been going through Unit   7 of the AP U.S. history curriculum and  in the last video we talked mainly about   the new manufacturing and communication  technologies that arrived on the scene,   and in this video we’re staying in the  1920s but we’re going to focus on culture   and politics. So if you’re ready to get  them brain cows milked, let’s get to it. So by 1920 more than half of Americans  lived in cities. And with this shifting   of American demographics, new opportunities were  opened up for women, international immigrants,   and internal migrants, and I’m kind of in the  mood to look at those one at a time. First,   new opportunities opened up for women. Generally  speaking, most middle class women were expected   to have babies make the home a haven of rest.  But for those women living in urban centers,   more opportunities to enter the workforce were  available, especially in jobs like nursing and   teaching. And women also worked unskilled  labor jobs in factories, but don’t worry,   they usually received a fraction of the  wages men did for performing the same job. Some women also threw off convention  during this era by cutting their hair   short and smoking and drinking, and  showing their ankles in public. They   were known as the flappers and they were a kind  of symbol of women’s liberation during the 20s. Next up on the opportunity train were  international immigrants. So after   World War I was over there was yet another  large influx of immigrants, especially from   southern and Eastern Europe and Asia. And do  I even need to tell you what the response was?   Who can tell me what the response was? Oh me?  That’s right it was yet another backlash of   nativism. This same thing happened in  the immigration wave of the 1840s and   then again in the 1880s and now in the 1920s  it’s happening again. Nativists be nativists,   and they’re always going to react strongly when  people who are not like them start flooding the   American shores. And just to remind you, nativism  is the effort to protect the rights of native-born   citizens (especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestant  natives) against the interests of immigrants. And the truth is, the nativist fears were the same  as they were in previous periods. Workers feared   they’d lose their jobs to immigrants who would  work for lower wages, and there were others who   worried about the pollution of the white race.  Now this nativist backlash actually produced   some legislation in the form of two immigration  quota acts. First. Was the Emergency Quota Act of   1921 which limited immigration to 3% of the  population measured by the 1910 census. And   second was the National Origins Act of 1924  which restricted immigration even further. Okay, third, let’s talk about internal migrations  and the big one to know during the 20s was   the Great Migration. This was just part two of  the Exodusters movement that we dealt with in the   last period. Huge numbers of the southern black  population left the south in order to settle in   the North and Midwest. No small portion of them  settled in New York, and especially Harlem. And   there, something magnificent occurred, namely,  the Harlem Renaissance which was a revival of   the arts and intellectual pursuits of the recently  migrated black population. Under this heading we   see the birth of jazz in the hands of musicians  like Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. Writers   like Langston Hughes and Claude McKay put  words to the black experience in America. Another group of writers you should know  during this period were called by Gertrude   Stein the Lost Generation. In this group  you had folks like F. Scott Fitzgerald and   Ernest Hemingway. Some of their main themes  were the pervasive materialism that plagued   American culture and the waste of life  and resources expended in World War I. Okay, now let’s shift and talk about  a different kind of cultural crisis,   namely the growing division between urban and  rural Protestants. Urban Protestants considered   themselves modernists whose faith was large  enough to embrace the changing culture with   respect to gender roles and Darwin’s increasingly  popular evolutionary theory of origins. Rural   Protestants considered themselves fundamentalists  who condemned the degradation of morals they saw   in the cities. And probably the main reason they  could not abide such changes was because they   believed that every word of the Bible must be  taken literally. At least, that’s how they’re   commonly portrayed. But many fundamentalists  weren’t as dumb as that makes them sound.   They understood that not every word of the Bible  is taken literally. When God says that he will   gather his people under the shelter of his wing,  fundamentalists don’t think that God is a giant   cosmic chicken. I think what fundamentalists  would say about themselves is not that they   take every word of the Bible literally, but that  they take every word of the Bible seriously. However, they did take the six-day  creation presented in Genesis 1 literally,   and that led to a great clash that gives us  a kind of paradigm for this fight between   modernists and fundamentalists. The event I’m  speaking of is the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.   So in Tennessee it was illegal at that time to  teach Darwin’s theory of evolution. But a saucy   teacher by the name of John Scopes decided it  was a dumb law, began teaching Darwin, and was   subsequently arrested. The case was immediately  seized upon by the media and it became a highly   publicized proceeding. Clarence Darrow defended  Scopes and the prosecuting attorney was populist   hero and thrice-failed presidential candidate  William Jennings Bryan. Now I’m not going to   give you a play by play of the proceedings, but  essentially what you need to know is that under   the incisive questioning of Darrow, Bryan  and the fundamentalism he defended ended   up looking as if it was unable to defend itself  against the onslaught of modernism. In the end,   Scopes was indeed convicted for breaking  the law, but his conviction was overturned   on a technicality. But what’s important about  this case is that as America watched it unfold,   the general sentiment is that modernism  had triumphed over fundamentalism. Alright, that’s it. If you need help getting an  A in your class and a five on your exam in May,   want me to keep making these videos, I’m  not going to be a fundamentalist about it,   but you should subscribe. Alright, Heimler out.