Dawes Lands in Severalty Act of 1887

Replacing Tribal Lands with Individual Land Allotments

© Michael Streich

 Apr 11, 2009

Although well intentioned, the Dawes Act resulted in massive land losses for Native American tribes and ultimately resulted in widespread poverty and despair.

The Dawes Lands in Severalty Act was approved by the United States Congress on February 8, 1887. Conceived by Massachusetts Senator Henry L. Dawes, known as a Senate reformer who wanted to see justice brought to Native Americans, the Act would abolish traditional tribal land ownership by liquidating the reservations and providing land allotments to Native Americans. The goal was to turn Native Americans into farmers while at the same time extending them U.S. citizenship.

Provisions of the Dawes Act of 1887

Section One of the Dawes Act described the distribution of land:

• To each head of a family, one-quarter section (160 acres)
• To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section (80 acres)
• To each other single person under eighteen years now living, or who may be born prior to the date of the order of the President directing an allotment of the lands embraced in any reservation, one sixteenth of a section (40 acres)
• 
  

Each land allotment was secured by a “trust” title, held by the U.S. government for 25 years. During that time, the land could not be subject to mortgage or be sold, although leasing was not addressed, and this would prove to be a weakness in the Act. Additionally, the “trust” title conveyed citizenship.

Commenting on the Act in December 18, 1886, The New York Times stated that, “This is rightly regarded as the first step toward making the red man a citizen, with all a citizen’s rights, like the white man and the black.” The notion that citizenship of itself was tied to property ownership suggested, as the Times notes, an adoption of “the habits of civilized life.” The result would be “peace…law and order.” The legislation was frequently called the Indian Emancipation Act.

Results of the Dawes Act of 1887

Despite all of its good intentions, the Act failed to account for the acute cultural differences that worked against turning Native Americans into farmers, even if it took 25 years. It did not foresee unscrupulous government agents eager to benefit from the misfortunes of the Native peoples.

Tribal surplus land was bought by the federal government and then resold to white development interests, the proceeds held in trust to pay for Native American education and development. Congress amended this in 1907 and distributed pro-rata payments to “competent” Native Americans who usually squandered the money.

Some “trust” title holders leased their allotments to the cattle industry, never becoming farmers and ultimately losing the land. Those that died during the trust period lost the land to federal government sales with proceeds going to beneficiaries; the trust titles could not be inherited.

The sale of whiskey also played a negative role in the Dawes Act. With citizenship came the ability to purchase whiskey. In 1906, the Burke Amendment withdrew citizenship in all future allotments, extending the wait for citizenship to 25 years, equal to the period of the trust title.

Appraisal of the 1887 Dawes Act

Under the pre-Dawes Act reservation system, Native Americans owned approximately 137 million acres. After the Dawes Act, 90 million acres were lost. By 1933, of the estimated 325,000 Native Americans in the United States, one half were landless and living in dire poverty.

Even the members of the “Five Civilized Tribes” living in Oklahoma that had been exempt from the Act voluntarily sold their reservations lands in 1906 under federal pressure. The Dawes Act may have inadvertently hastened the loss of Native American lands and rather than providing a formula for the perceived attributes of “civilized” living, made the Native Americans permanent wards of the state. Native American culture would endure despite attempts to eradicate it.

Sources:

• The Dawes Lands in Severalty Act, nebraskastudies.org
• “The Indian Severalty Bill,” The New York Times, December 18, 1886.
• Frederick Merk, History of the Westward Movement (New York: Alfred A, Knopf, 1978)

The copyright of the article Dawes Lands in Severalty Act of 1887 in Native American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Dawes Lands in Severalty Act of 1887 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Senator Henry L. Dawes

 

Theodor Herzl Promotes a Jewish Homeland in Palestine

Jan 14, 2011 Michael Streich

Theodor Herzl Founded the Zionist Movement - Wikimedia Commons Image: Public Domain

Theodor Herzl envisioned a Jewish homeland in Palestine when it became apparent that Europe still clung to Antisemitism in the modern world.

Israel became a sovereign nation May 14, 1948. Persecuted and treated as strangers for centuries, Jews returned to the Promised Land to turn barren deserts into fertile, agricultural fields. Theodor Herzl’s solution to the “Jewish question” was fulfilled. According to Herzl’s treatise The Jewish State, the return to an historical homeland was not a Utopian vision, but the obvious solution to “the misery of Jews.” Herzl, writing in the late 19th Century, was not convinced that a modern, industrialized Europe would accept Jews as equals. His 1896 “political solution,” published in Vienna, was a logical and reasoned answer to on-going Jewish persecution.

Treatment of Jews in Late 19th Century Europe

Herzl wrote at a time of renewed persecution and anti-Semitism. Under Tsar Alexander III of Russia, pogroms targeted Jewish communities. In 1894, the trial of Alfred Dreyfus took place in France, focusing on Dreyfus’ Jewish roots. The “Dreyfus Affair” brought to the surface intense French anti-Semitism. In The Jewish State, Herzl reminded his readers that Jews have always been ostracized as people of the ghetto, and treated as strangers in communities they had lived in for many generations.

Herzl may have recalled the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492. Jewish communities in Spain had existed for centuries, as had the Muslims. But in 1492 King Ferdinand endeavored to turn Spain into a solidly Catholic nation. This was the same king who gave life to the infamous “Spanish Inquisition.” Spanish Jews left Spain aboard ships at the same time Christopher Columbus was leaving Europe to cross the Atlantic.

England Facilitates the Zionist Dream of a Homeland for Jews

Herzl attempted to negotiate with the Ottoman sultan in Turkey as well as Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Unsuccessful, he turned to England. Although Herzl died in 1904, the Zionist cause found its greatest support in England. The defeat of the Ottomans in World War One opened the door to Zionist hopes. Herzl’s dream became reality.

On November 2, 1917, Arthur James Lord Balfour wrote Lord Rothschild, stating that, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object…” The Versailles peace deliberations placed Palestine under the British as a “mandate” or sphere of influence. The Balfour Declaration, however, was an important step toward the eventual establishment of an independent Jewish state in the Middle East.

Jews Reestablish a Historic Homeland but Encounter Resistance

Louis Lipsky, a leader in the early 20th Century Zionist movement in America, writes that, “Through Herzl, Jews were taught not to fear the consequences of an international movement to demand their national freedom.” Jewish migrations to Palestine increased after World War II and the horrific realities of the Holocaust.

As Herzl noted in his treatise, anti-Semitism was even evident in the United States, a place Jews fled to in the late 19th Century and during the 1930s. Even American religious leaders, like Father Charles Coughlin, reiterated centuries’ old prejudices and stereotypes against Jews. After World War II, American Jews supported the state of Israel and many migrated to the Middle East.

Israel’s fourth Prime Minister, Gold Meir, was elected in 1969. Although born in Kiev, Mrs. Meir migrated to the United States, eventually teaching in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin school district. Like many American Jews, she was a committed Zionist.

By 1948, however, the Jews in Palestine were fighting a battle for independence. The British government had made the homeland possible, but events in the Middle East had changed. Britain opposed an independent Jewish state. Additionally, Arab neighbors rejected an independent Israel. This conflict led to the still on-going battles between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Herzl and the Birth of Zionism

Theodor Herzl was correct in identifying the causes and effects of anti-Semitism. Many of his examples could be applied to Germany at the time Nazis were consolidating power and defining new “race laws.” Herzl refers to the phrase “Juden Raus,” (Out with the Jews) and the boycotts of Jewish businesses. Beyond these daily realities, however, Herzl focused on an attitude, formed by centuries of prejudice and intolerance.

There was no country so hospitable as to assimilate Jews as equals. The only logical solution was an independent Jewish state. Jews returning to Palestine to build this new state were not only a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, but a modern resolution legitimized by historical realities.

Sources:

• Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State (Dover Publications, 1988)
• Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Neal Kozodoy, editor, The Mideast Peace Process: An Autopsy (Encounter Books, 2002)
• Harold Nicolson, Peace Making 1919 (Grosset & Dunlap, 1965)
• Geoffrey Wheatcroft, The Controversy of Zion: Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State, and the Unresolved Jewish Dilemma (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1996)

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

 

Austrian Anschluss and the Catholic Church

Nationalism and Fear of Marxism Motivated Catholic Support

• Feb 5, 2009
• Michael Streich

Cardinal Innitzer Trusted the Nazis - Public Domain. No copyright

In a nation where 91% of the population was officially Catholic, over 99% voted in favor of joining Austria with Nazi Germany due in part to official church support.

One month after the Austrian Anschluss of March 12, 1938, Austrians went to the polls in a national plebiscite to ratify the joining of Austria with the Nazi Reich. Over 99% of Austrians voted “yes,” having been swayed by unending propaganda in the presses, pressure from the Austrian Nazis, and in some cases, the blessings of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, notably Theodor Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna. The motivation of the Catholic hierarchy is still debated today, but several apparent reasons are well documented.

Cardinal Innitzer and the Plebiscite Vote to Join Austria with Nazi Germany

Cardinal Innitzer was both a German nationalist and an opponent of Marxism. In this, the leader of the Austrian Catholics embodied the two greatest arguments for union with the German Reich, shared by other German bishops and much of the population. The April 10th, 1938 ballot asked the Austrian people a simple question: “Do you pledge yourself to our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler and therewith to the reunification of Austria with the German Reich carried out on March 13th?” [1 Appeasement and Adolf Hitler in 1938

The statement appealed to the nationalist sentiment felt by many Austrians. One Catholic newspaper, the Passauer Bistumsblatt, stated that “it corresponds to the natural order set by God if…men speaking the same language and of common blood and ancestry are joined in a great Reich of the Germans.” [2] Although many Catholic newspapers by this time supported Hitler’s Reich, even over objections by some bishops, the Bishop of Passau enthusiastically supported “the Great German Fatherland.”

Catholic Fears of Communism

Cardinal Innitzer’s other worries concerned Marxism. The Catholic Church had long feared this movement and historians note that many church leaders, if given the choice, preferred National Socialism to Communism. According to Evan Bukey, the “Catholic hierarchy concluded that only the restoration of an authoritarian order could reverse the secular trends of the age…” [3] National Socialism’s fierce opposition to Communism made it easier to accept this new authoritarianism as long as the church was permitted to keep its prerogatives.

The Catholic Church Betrayed by Hitler and the Nazis

Following the plebiscite vote in April, the church continued to negotiate with the Nazis although the new regime had already closed parish schools, confiscated church lands, and silenced Catholic opposition. The attack on Cardinal Innitzer’s Episcopal residence following his leadership in what the Nazis perceived as an anti-government demonstration at St. Stephen’s Square, was one of the final acts demonstrating Hitler’s ultimate desires in emasculating the Austrian Catholic Church.

In retrospect, Innitzer’s naïve belief that he could maintain the Concordat of 1933 and seriously negotiate with the Nazis undermined the ability of the church to speak with one voice. Playing into the hands of duplicitous Nazi negotiators, the church urged a “yes” voted at the plebiscite, realizing afterward the folly of their actions. For its part, the Vatican severely critized Innitzer and other bishops for not taking a stronger stand against National Socialism and the protection church prerogatives such as marriage and education.

Sources:

[1] quoted in The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany by Guenter Lewy, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964) p. 217.

[2] IBID p. 216.

[3] Evan Burr Bukey, Hitler’s Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era 1838-1945 (University of North Carolina Press, 2000) p. 93.

See Also:

Gordon Zahn, German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars (Sheed and Ward, 1962).

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

 

 

Bataan Death March of April 1942

Americans didn’t learn of the Bataan Death March and the atrocities associated with the Japanese 1942 conquest of Luzon until January 28, 1944 when newspapers publicized the tragic events. This fact alone may help to explain the ferocity of revenge advocated by Americans and their overwhelming support of President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb later that summer. The Bataan Death March of April 1942 was, according to Air Force Historian Stanley L. Falk, a “tragic nightmare without form, reason, or mercy.”

American Forces Surrender at Bataan to the Japanese in 1942

The Japanese invasion force under General Masaharu Homma began brilliantly, duplicating Imperial Japanese victories in China, Southeast Asia, and Singapore. After reaching Manila, however, Homma was confronted with the American and Filipino withdrawal to Bataan on the southern tip of the island. General Douglas MacArthur was determined to hold out until reinforcements could be sent.

Underestimating American strength, Homma dispatched untested troops, relieving a more veteran corps that was needed elsewhere. As the battle continued, it became obvious that the American and Filipino forces, numbering 80,000, would not easily be subdued. MacArthur was ordered to Australia on March 11th, leaving General Jonathan Wainwright in command.

By early April the American position had become untenable. Heavy air bombardment and Japanese encirclement tore long holes into the American and Filipino defensive perimeters. On April 9, 1942, forward commander General King, against orders, agreed to unconditional surrender. It was the anniversary of Robert E Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Some 76,000 prisoners would begin the long march to Camp O’Donnell in the North.

The Bataan Death March to Camp O’Donnell Results in Many American Deaths

Historians have never been able to confirm whether Imperial Headquarters in Tokyo actually issued the order, but Japanese ground commanders at Bataan were given verbal orders over the telephone to kill all prisoners. Absent clearly written orders, the commanders refused. Instead, prisoners were marched in small groups to the distant POW camp. 7-10,000 would die on the march, beaten to death, bayoneted, beheaded, and starved.

Blair Robinett, a private in Company C, 803d Engineers, described a Japanese soldier grabbing a sick prisoner and hurling the unfortunate man in front of an on-coming Japanese tank. “When the last tank left there was no way you could tell there’d ever been a man there. But his uniform was embedded in the cobblestone.” Captain Marion Lawton, with the 1st Battalion, 31st Regiment, recounted the fate of a Colonel Erwin who was first bayoneted by a Japanese guard and then pushed to the side of the road into a ditch where the guard “put his rifle muzzle to his back and pulled the trigger.”

The majority of American and Filipino prisoners suffered unrelenting cruelties on the march while being denied adequate medical treatment, food, or water. After reaching Camp O’Donnell, thousands more would die of malaria and malnutrition. Thousands were put on ships and transferred to China to work as forced laborers in Japanese camps.

Explanations for the Bataan Death March

Western historians point to the militaristic traditions of Japan and the emphasis on personal strength. Surrender was a sign of weakness. A Japanese field manual advised soldiers to leave their last round of ammunition for themselves; surrender was not an option. The April 24, 1942 edition of the Japan Times & Advertiser commented that, “The Japanese forces are crusaders in a holy war.”

Hiding the Death March from the American Public

In addition to the Samurai tradition, Stanley Falk cites “failures in Japanese leadership,” demonstrating that a humane prisoner process had been put into place by General Homma but that these policies were largely ignored by on-site commanders. American military leadership, for its part, kept the truth of the atrocities away from the public out of fear that such disclosures might adversely affect American POWs.

Sources:

Donald Knox, Death March: The Survivors of Bataan, Introduction by Stanley L. Falk (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1981).

John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire Volume I (Random House, 1970).

 

Burning Louvain in 1914 an Example of German War Time Atrocities

• Jun 17, 2011
• Michael Streich

The medieval Belgian town of Louvain was destroyed by occupying German troops that ignored Belgian neutrality and brutalized the inhabitants.

World War I was barely one month old when the German forces, fighting their way through neutral Belgium, committed one of the worst atrocities of the war. A crime against humanity, the burning of Louvain on August 25, 1914 was also a crime against history. Louvain was a medieval city on the road to Brussels with a famous university and a library that held priceless medieval works. According to historians John Horne and Alan Kramer, “Louvain was a genteel city, inhabited by wealthy retired people, academics, priests, monks, and nuns.” German troops, however, destroyed the city, skillfully placing the blame on the Belgians, accused of attacking and killing German soldiers and officers.

Belgium Invaded by German Troops in 1914

Neutral Belgium, established in 1830 by Europe’s great powers, was invaded in 1914 by one million German men comprising five separate armies with orders to rapidly reach the French frontier in fulfillment of the von Schlieffen Plan. Success of encirclement depended upon a rigid timetable which mandated a schedule dependent upon speed. From the very beginning, however, resisting Belgians hindered the time frame, forcing the Germans to take brutal action.

Commanding generals ordered the destruction of towns and villages and sanctioned the massacres of hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children. In the case of Liege, German forces used human shields to break the resistance. Germans blamed the often imaginary actions against its troops on franc-tireurs, a term first used in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War to denote civilians acting as combatants. Ignoring many instances of “friendly fire” and poor troop discipline, any mishaps were blamed on the bitter population.

What Really Happened at Louvain?

The destruction of Louvain was attested to by observers representing the neutral legations in Brussels, including the United States diplomatic mission. Subsequent German investigations ignored lapses in troop discipline and helped to fan the flames of propaganda. American and British newspapers reported that the old St. Peter’s church had been burned along with artworks of old masters.

A September 28, 1914 London Times article, however, relying upon comments given by an unnamed “Belgian nobleman,” stated that the artworks had been saved for transport to Germany. The destruction of the medieval library, on the other hand, elicited the greatest horror. Historian Barbara Tuchman quotes the young Belgian King Albert telling the French Minister, “…They burned the Library of Louvain simply because it was unique and universally admired.”

German Propaganda Blames Reprisals on the Belgian Resistance

Based on memoirs, eye-witness accounts, and official diplomatic reports, historians appear convinced that the destruction of Louvain began after shots were fired in the city, attributed to the German troops themselves. Given the level of fear and lack of discipline on the part of some army units, reprisals began immediately, culminating in the systematic burning of the city. A September 18, 1914 item in the German Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung claims that the medieval city hall was not damaged; coincidentally, this was also the site of German headquarters and housed many officers.

The German response by Adolf von Bruning, dated August 30, 1914 and reported in the New York Times one month later, blamed the local population as well as Belgian rulers. German reprisals, according to the report, came in response to a “spontaneous uprising” of local citizens in tandem with an expected Belgian military sortie from Antwerp. The burning commenced on August 28th. German dates and times conflict with reports of neutral observers and eye-witness accounts in order to give the impression of an orderly, balanced response.

The Brutalization of the Belgian Population

Belgians that were not shot or bayoneted were deported to Germany as laborers and later to occupied France. Tuchman blames much of the violence perpetrated by the Germans on fear. Other historians cite troop discipline and German disdain for non-Germans. German war goals in 1914 had not yet developed a firm future for Belgium based on German victory. One aspect that must also be considered is the rigid timetable reflected in the Schlieffen Plan.

German Planning Hindered by Belgian Resistance

The extent of Belgian resistance had not been factored into the plan. The German war machine was based on absolute precision. Every train car was accounted for and every military company had its place in the cog of that machine. Mobilization began a process that was intricate and fast. France had to be defeated before Russia was militarily capable of entering the conflict. Mobilization was only the first phase of an operation that assumed sleepy Belgium would cooperate with invasion and occupation.

The burning of Louvain seemed to contradict the characteristics of a civilized nation that gave the world Beethoven and Goethe. The city’s destruction was a reminder that war did not respect history. The lessons of Louvain would be revisited in the next generation with the bombing of German cities. In August 1914, however, the ashes of the Louvain medieval library served as a reminder of human ignorance and brutality.

Sources:

• Philip J. Haythornthwaite, The World War One Source Book (Brockhampton Press, 1992)
• John Horne and Alan Kramer, German Atrocities 1914: A History of Denial (Yale University Press, 2001)
• Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (The Macmillan Company, 1962)
• Various news articles noted above

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

 

 

Anarchism and the Beliefs of Mikhail Bakunin

The Apostle of Anarchy Promoted an Activist Approach to Revolution

Nov 18, 2009 Michael Streich

Of all movements emerging from 19th Century radicalism, Bakunin's anarchism was the most effective and continued to influence 20th Century revolutionary activities.

In 1965 Ernesto “Che” Guevara arrived in Bolivia to begin a Cuba-style revolution. Guevara, who was killed by the Bolivian army two years later, had been a disciple of the 19th Century Russian radical, Mikhail Bakunin. Part of Guevara’s inspiration came from The Catechism of the Revolutionary, a guide-book of sorts written by Bakunin and his younger protégé Sergei Nachaev. Bakunin was the founder of anarchism, a revolutionary movement that included Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Alexander Berkman.

The Roots of Anarchism and Russian Radicalism

Guevara’s Bolivian Indians fit well with Bakunin’s model of revolution. These were the very poor, impoverished peasants, who had everything to gain by rising up in popular revolution. This had worked for Lenin in Russia and Mao in China. Anarchism targeted the lowest members of society. Referring to the Revolutions of 1848, historian Paul Avrich writes that Bakunin “threw himself into the uprisings of 1848 with irrepressible exuberance…moving with the tide of revolt from Paris to the barricades of Austria and Germany.”

Bakunin was an adolescent when the Decembrist Revolt took place in St. Petersburg, yet it had a profound affect on his thinking. Russia had a long history of peasant uprisings, the most recent one under Catherine the Great. The Pugachev Revolt involved tens of thousands of peasants – serfs that rose against imperial rule leaving a bloody trail as they marched on Moscow. Before Pugachev were the revolts of Razin and Bulavin.

Although Bakunin studied the philosophies of the German realists, thinkers like Hegel and Fichte, he was not a theorist like Karl Marx and other radicals of the 19th Century. Bakunin was an activist. Anarchism advocated the total destruction of the social and political order. Out of this conflagration would arise a new and more equitable state and society. Bakunin was a man of action who personally rolled up his sleeves to show the peasants how real revolutions are fought.

19th Century Anarchism in Action

According to the Catechism of the Revolutionary, an anarchist “knows only one science, the science of destruction.” This conflagration of the existing society began with a “spark,” or “the bunt.” 19th Century anarchism focused, in part, on political assassination. Both the popular Empress Elizabeth of Austria and the American President William McKinley were assassinated by anarchists. Alexander Berkman, a key figure in the violent strike against Carnegie Steel in Homestead, Pennsylvania, was an anarchist. During a rally of angry workers in New York City, Emma Goldman told the crowd to break the windows of shops and take what they needed. She was deported back to Europe.

Bakunin’s message to the activist was that everything which “promotes the success of the revolution is moral and everything which hinders it is immoral.” Thus, any actions taken in the name of revolution were condoned and even glorified. Bakunin, however, was not the stereotype of a cold-blooded killer with mass murder in his eyes. Historian E. H. Carr’s biography anecdotes Bakunin’s attendance at a performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony in Leipzig. At the conclusion of the Ode to Joy, Bakunin rushed to the front of the stage proclaiming, “Everything must be destroyed except this symphony!”

Legacy of Bakunin and Anarchism

Bakunin’s call to revolution as an immediate uprising by the poorest members of society was most keenly seen in the various 20th Century revolutions that utilized peasant masses, achieving radical change from “the bottom up.” His radicalism affected such modern groups as the American Black Panthers as well as movements in South America and Africa. Anarchism continues to be an active force even though other 19th Century revolutionary ideals, like Marxism, have been discredited.

Sources:

• Paul Avrich, Anarchist Portraits (Princeton University Press, 1988)
• E. H. Carr, Mikhail Bakunin (Vintage Books, 1961)
• Imperial Russia: A Source Book, 1700-1917, Basil Dmytryshyn, editor (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1967)
• Aileen Kelly, Mikhail Bakunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics of Utopianism (Yale University Press, 1987)
• 
  

No reprinting without written permission of the author.

 The Game of Life Prepared Families to Play the Achievement of the Great American Dream Through Capitalism

Michael Streich February 23, 2009

The Milton Bradley Company launched The Game of Life in 1960. More than any other board game, Life taught the benefits of capitalism and challenged players to pursue the “American Dream.” On the heels of the 1950s, which featured what Elaine May refers to as “domestic containment” in the conformist society, Life contrasted, indirectly, American society with Communism. Successful players were encouraged to take risks in order to increase prosperity and ultimately winning the game.

 

Starting the Game

 

Each player started the game with a car and $2,000. As the instructions declared, “You may become a Millionaire and retire in luxury, or wind up broke at the Poor Farm.” The Poor Farm is no longer part of contemporary versions of the game. The first spins on the numbered wheel forced players to make the first real “life” choices: whether to follow the shorter path, equated with “business,” or whether to “take the ‘College’ route” and become a doctor, teacher, or another profession. Taking the longer route paid bigger salaries collected throughout the game.

 

The implications were clear: a fast track through business might give a person a head start in life, but the longer path usually pays off better financially. Such choices were common in the original game, educating players to the long term benefits of stock investing, life insurance, auto and fire. At some point in the game, each of these items could help stave off financial disaster. At the end of the game, those with stock certificates or life insurance policies added to their “life” winnings.

 

Marriage and the Family

 

Everyone playing the game had to stop at the church and get married. This also required other players to give “presents” in the form of money. As the game continued, players also added children. Each car had enough room for four children. This was a time in American history when marriage and tight family relationships were encouraged. Life reinforced social norms and expectations. 1960 was also the year of the Kennedy-Nixon presidential election. John F. Kennedy won, bringing to the White House a beautiful young wife and small children.

 

Perhaps in true Adam Smith fashion, Life included “share the wealth” cards that either took money from an opponent or paid out money to an opponent. While there is no hint of charity on the board (excepting the one space telling the player to give $5,000 to a favorite charity), every player could end at Millionaire Acres. Finishing at the Poor Farm meant that the player made bad choices, took too many risks, and overextended their credit with the bank. The game highlighted individualism while adding the risks of speculation.

 

The Game of Life and the American Dream

 

“You too can be a Millionaire in this game of Life. That’s the object of the game.” So begins the list of instructions for what Milton Bradley called “A True to Life Game.” Success in life depended upon sound decisions – good choices, from the first day of adulthood to retirement. Both caution and risk promoted free market ideals.

 

Children playing the game learned why stocks splitting meant more money or why paying off a promissory note quickly decreased interest paid. Board games like Life brought suburban families together on Sunday afternoons, allowing parents to use such games to further educate children about pursuing the American Dream. Although other games like Monopoly also taught the values of property ownership, Life took all specific elements of capitalist success and incorporated them into a potential life time table.

 

Source:

 

Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1998).

Any attempt to reprint this article in print form or digital form may only be accomplished with written permission by the author.