The high school test is entitled A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People; but the history of the United States is more that of one group abusing another until the abused group turns, fights, gains power, and at last offers a serious challenge to the position of the abusing group. Out history can be seen as that of a forever expanding private party. a bunch of people enjoying themselves with no sense of obligation or responsibility to anyone else. If some group should repeatedly complain of noise or in some other way threaten the continuation of the party, that group is eventually silenced by being invited to join in the festivities.

Blacks threatened the party and so were finally invited to join in by the passing of the sixties civil rights legislation. Women upset at not being allowed to attend threatened to crash and possibly destroy the party. The E.R.A. now stands as their male-delayed invitation.

The party, from inception, was billed as an open party; everyone was free to attend and enjoy. But when people go to the door, they discovered it was private-invitation only. It remains private; perhaps because the participants feel themselves somehow special or superior, when they know there are those who cannot attend. Of course, as stated earlier, when the pounding on the door is threatening enough, the insiders will open it and reluctantly grant admittance to those they sought to keep out. The important thing is that the party continue. And it should be remembered that just because you let someone in, it does not mean that you must drink or dance with him.

The Constitution states how the party is to be constructed and conducted. The first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, state the rights of the party-goers. The 11th deals with the relations between the American party and those of other nations. the 12th outlines the details of how the bandleader and his assistant are to be chosen. The 13th states, quite simply, that one cannot be forced to act as a waiter except as punishment for a crime. The 14th amendment expanded the definition of who could attend the party, clarified questions as to how entertainment committee A was to be selected, and excluded from both entertainment committee A and B those who had earlier sought to establish their own party. The 15th stated conditions no longer considered valid reasons for excluding from the party those who sought to attend. The 16th raised money for, among other things, chips, pretzels, and beer. The 17th cleared up some questions as to how entertainment committee B was to be selected. The 18th outlawed spiked punch and other fun beverages. The 19th sought to silence the complaints of some women by giving all women the vote in all elections. The 20th amendment told when the entertainment committees would meet, when the band would play, and answered the question of who would conduct should the stage collapse and the bandleader break his neck. The 21st allowed spiked punch and other fun beverages to be served once again. The 22nd stated the bandleader could conduct only two sets. The 23rd gave the vote to other complaining people. The 24th removed economic prerequisites from the right to vote. The 25th gave the specifics of succession upon the death or disability of the bandleader. The 26th allowed younger people a say in the action by giving them the vote, if they be eighteen or older.

The basic constitution of the party itself is never questioned nor is the evident self-interest of its fun seeking participants. The party is billed as open, as free, as democratic; but is in essence one ruled by an expanding but nevertheless select majority, a majority which is nothing more than an unusually well-behaved mob. And no amount of amending, re-directing, or disguising can ever change that. The mob has, at various times, seen fit to practice genocide on the Redman, enslave the Blackman, and wipe out the Carrier Pigeon. It has shown a marked tendency to move from the physical to the mental in order to save face while practicing its prejudices; moving from the general to the specific.

Blacks, once enslaved as a race, were freed only to be lynched individually as Saturday night entertainment. Finally giving into pressure, the mob granted the Blackman his "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness;" but then proceeded to limit him by refusing him his culture, stripping him of his dignity and self-respect, and placing him in ghettos from which escape would be possible only to a relative few.

Indians, who survived the attempt at genocide, have met with a sadly similar fate.

It must be remembered that it was only with the greatest of reluctance that the party granted admittance to those it detested. It should therefore not be surprising that survival within the party rests upon one's ability to show that he is not that which is detested. Or that success should depend upon the capability to prove oneself to be a party-goer.

Thus for the Indian to survive within the party, he must, to a very large degree, show that he is not an Indian. To succeed, he must show himself to be white. The same pertains to the chances of survival and success for Blacks and Women. The individual or group newly allowed access to the party invariably finds both definition and goal in those long before laid down by the party.

The case of the Indian demonstrates the total destruction capability the party can bring to bear. The Indian, once identified by particular styles of dress, particular family and community structures, particular physical characteristics, and particular languages, is now more often than not, an Indian solely on the strength of a well-documented genealogical chart. Even the innocent sounding, "One should make a decent living," finds definition in the concepts of the party. For the concept of making a living did not exist in the Indian's native way of life.

In some countries, particular languages, dialects, styles of dress, etc., are retained and respected as sources of pride and strength; but here they are rejected as sources of shame and guilt. It is ironic that the dialect poetry of, say, Robert Burns, is very highly regarded and a matter of intense Scottish racial pride, whereas Black dialect poetry is, or has been, regarded in quite an opposite light. Once again, one must strive to meet the standards within the party. Quite simply, one is forever free to waltz in a jitterbug contest. But the greatest chance of winning belongs to those who not only jitterbug, but do so in the style most pleasing to the judges.

Women have succeeded within the party by conforming to the standards previously laid down. They got accepted and get ahead by showing themselves to be men just as Indians and Blacks had done by showing themselves to be white.

While many applaud the inclusion of Indians, Blacks, Women, and other "minorities" to the party, it yet remains that few question the basic constitution of the party. There are infinitely many ways to construct a party; and perhaps a party, any kind of party, is not the best way to order a society. There are other games that can be played.

Most still consider the history of America as the evolution of a free people; but if such is the case the "free people" must be white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male property owner over the age of twenty-one. It cannot include Blacks, Indians, Women, the other official and unofficial minorities. That America is free for many of its citizens is the result not of any birthright; but of a long and hard struggle by generations striving to get into the party. A struggle which when successful often strips the individual and group of its identity and gives it a new one. A sort of trading off of pervious heritage for the potentials of the party. And this trade is completed without question, without a sense of loss.

To some few, mostly males, it is a time of sadness, if not outright despair; that the "rise of the woman" has gone hand and hand with a downfall of the traditional family.

The standard work day, work week, and the nature of the career evolved because of the woman freeing the man to pursue them. Women moving into the "better" aspects of the labor force have found definition and goal in what was. They trade off not only the poorer but better aspects of the old family structure for the promise of the party, for the prospect of situation and prestige. They were not encouraged; indeed were forbidden from coming up with new definitions and goals.

Today most still deny the truth of M.G. St. Jean de Creveceur's statement:

The society, i.e., the party, is the most perfect and it is based upon self-interest; and that self-interest has been translated into selfishness. Our elderly have been left to fend for themselves, and many are not able to and would perish is not for the conscience of the entertainment committees which have set some funds aside for housing, food, and medical assistance. The old family, despite its obvious and well publicized flaws, did feel compelled to take care of its own. And more and more of today's children are, likewise, dumped to be institutionalized.

The party is quantitative, not qualitative. The acquisition of things is what is stressed. Money and titles. The richest party is the one which is marked by a forever growing epidemic of mental patients.

The pressures of the party are proving to be too much for the party-goers but no one tries to get out; no one tries to change the party. Instead more and more try to get in.

It is time to consider exactly what the party is and what it does to us. Perhaps it is time for a new party or a whole new configuration for our society. We must change from this: "to have or not to be society" into something which is no longer perfect, just decent.