Hmmm. I still can't figure out what point "observer" is trying to make. My point, is that until the end of the 19th century, the power elite in the United States were white people of mostly English and Scottish ancestry, and (for the most part) these were the people who carried out Manifest Destiny and eradicated the Native American population. By the time the mass migration of working-class Europeans took place, the entire territory that is now the United States, was firmly under the control of white, wealthy Americans of English and Scottish ancestry.
I've driven every one of the fifty United States except for taking only public transportation in Hawaii. In those travels, it was clear to me that there was very little European settlement west of the Mississippi prior to the Civil War (1861-65) and the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. Everything west of the Mississippi was very sparsely settled. Nonetheless, the new United States kept snapping up title to large territories - the Louisiana Purchase in 1803; the annexation of Texas in 1845; the Oregon Territory in 1846; and Utah, New Mexico, and California in 1850. Except for a narrow strip of land in Southern Arizona, the white Americans of English ancestry held title to the entire "lower 48" by 1850. They then spent the next 50 years wresting control of the land from the indigenous tribes. Yes, there were European settlements scattered throughout those western states since the middle 1700s (and earlier in places), but these settlements were scattered and had relatively little effect on the indigenous populations. One other factor to consider here - almost all indigenous people were relocated to areas west of the Mississippi before 1850.

Now, if you look at rosters of people in positions of power in the United States until 1900 (and to a great extent, until 1950), you will find that the vast majority of people in power were white males of ancestry from England and other parts of the British Isles. You will find very few French or Italian or Slavic or Germanic Members of Congress until after 1950, very few Blacks or Latinos, and almost no women. There were large numbers of all these other "minorities"; but until 1950, the power rested almost entirely in the hands of white males of primarily British ancestry.

So, when Woody wrote his song over the 1940s, he was writing for the vast numbers of working people of all races who held very little of the wealth and power in these United States. And, to a great extent, there is still very little American wealth and power that lies beyond the control of the "one percent," a group that has very little ethnic or gender diversity.

In other words, Woody's song is still relevant.

-Joe Offer-