"E Pluribus Unum" - out of the many, the one.
...But which is more important - the many, or the one?"
In at least 250 words, this online discussion will focus on the question that we started last week in the context of the Progressives and the "New Immigration" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries:
Is American society a "melting pot" or a "salad bowl"? Some other metaphor?
And the subsidiary questions still apply to this question: How powerful a solvent is life in America to immigrants, their children, and their children's children? How successful have immigrants been traditionally in preserving their ethnic heritages? Is immigration today any different? How was the "new" immigration of the late nineteenth century different than the "old" immigration of earlier times? Was it, in fact, different? To what exent has American always been a diverse place? A "nation of many nations"? To what extent have Americans conformed to national "mainstream" standards of language, law, and culture? Is there even such a thing as an American "mainstream" culture - or only American subcultures?This discussion is in preparation for this Thursday's Socratic dialogue for this assignment, as well as the next in class AP English essay. Learn from your fellow students and move down the road towards being able to speak knowledgably and insightfullly about these issues! Good luck everyone! I hope to see the same level of sophistication and passion as in the last postings. And please remember that nobody gets personal in their disagreements - stick to the issues and agree to disagree, if it comes to that. At the same time, please be as honest as possible in explaining exactly what you think and feel. Americans have passionately disagreed on this topic since colonial times, and nowadays is no different. In fact, if nobody strongly disagreed on this topic it would itself be a danger sign, in my opinion. But disagree respectfully, and be mindful that everyone is entitled to their opinion. To put it simply: Attack the opinion stated, not the person stating it. Remember: 250 words, at least - and you have until Thursday morning the 24th at 8 a.m. to post it.
posted by 515guyforlife at 2/21/2005 08:50:00 PM
5 Comments:
I would generally agree in large part with the opinions of posters such as Bartonius and DJ Waldman in the whole “soup” or “chile” metaphors that seem to be popular so far on the posts. There are cultural differences between areas of the United States depending on which people initially settled in said areas and their local traditions, but this is true even in countries that do not have as long and varied tradition of immigration, and in my opinion does little to adversely effect the “unity” or “integrity” of America and its culture. In a sense, it is actually an advantage since a large measure of the immigration to America occurred because of it’s promise of individualism and freedom; therefore it would be strange to think that immigrants from countries with more autocratic traditions who came to the united states to escape those would somehow become a threat to the major pull factor that attracted them to America in the first place. In addition, leaving immigrants to their own devices is a much more effective integrationist policy than trying to directly impose American society on them through external measures. Individuality itself is one of America’s primary political and cultural legacies, and in the long term this individualism and plurality of cultures causes changes in the culture of all who immigrate, especially in the second and third generations of immigrants. If American culture is imposed forcefully, however, then the result is often a stern unwillingness on the part of cultural groups to accept themselves as Americans, since it seems like the arbitrary hand of American power is attacking them, which puts them on the defensive. The reality is that varying people have varying perceptions of what America stands for and what it should strive for in the future; this is a good thing, because it tends to balance the country as a whole. In so far as the concept of the “melting pot” means that the US should try to squeeze out the individuality and cultural influence of non-European / Anglo Saxon cultures, I oppose it; in so far as it means that the contributions of each group are factored together to form a broader and more inclusive picture of Americans as a whole and reflect it with cultural change, I support it wholeheartedly.
It is my belief that the success of America has been its ability to create a balance between the “American way of life” and the backgrounds of its culturally diverse population. Usually, by the third generation of an immigrant family, the children are fully integrated into the American culture while still retaining knowledge and respect for their hertitage. It is a necessity when visiting or living in a new country or culture to respect their customs, and try to fit in as best you can; this is mostly because if you isolate yourself or act in a way that is “strange” to them, they will see as a neusance or fear you. Most immigrant cultures are successful in preserving their culture when they move to America, yet somehow manage to adapt their ways to fit those of the American public. I think this is mainly because of the freedoms we have as a nation. We allow people to be themselves to a certain extent, but that don’t mean we want them to completely discard what we have to offer. Right from the beginning, America was the land of economic opportunity, and was home to the most diverse population living in peace amongst eachother in the world. I think the emphasis on integrating cultures and conforming to the mainstream is should not be interpreted as a threat to a person’s heritage, but rather a necessity in the prosperity of a nation. Without a “mainstream” language, it would make communication nearly impossible with all of the different one in use today. There is also the issue of having a “mainstream” culture. This is imperitve because if we allowed there to be a mexican part of America and a Chinese part of America and so on. It is inevitable that the people of each part would eventually band together and split the country apart. That is the importance of keeping a transcendent- but not overbearing- culture and language as the lettuce of our salad bowl country. Keeping a base of lettuce to go with all the other added vegitable lets you know this is still a country and not just a bowl of carrots, radish, and bacon bits. Without the lettuce base, the country would become its own worst enemy and lead to its eventual demise. I know this is maybe a little bit dramatic, but my postings are usually boring so I thought I’d add a little “something something” if you know what I mean.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rather than give the normal format where i continue on the course of explaining myself, i will bullet it for much more organization and to make my thesis clearer... and mind you im half asleep and just got my internet back for the first time in a month and a half... ohhh sweet sweet internet...
--To what extent have Americans conformed to national "mainstream" standards of language, law, and culture?--
We have been unified as Americans by language, because by not being unified we are no longer a solvent country, in a time of disaster or emergency when everyone around you cannot understand what you are saying and they entire community is completely flabbergasted, then disunity builds more and more...
For instance,
China is contains some 1000 different languages, how do u manage a country or 1.3 billion people with that many languages, it’s a mess
India has 120 languages for 1 billion people they don’t manage well
By manage I mean they are an economic mess, and seem to be run by a reoccurring Mafioso type, as most communist regimes are…
-- We HAVE to have a common Economy otherwise with a futile banking system where every bank prints their own currency, Much like the Jeffersonian financial structure (correct me if im wrong but thats what i understood it as) and much like how economic interests were without national banks..
-- We HAVE to have a common set of economic rules, otherwise...
o Mafioso makes subculture underdogs
o Mafioso grows into a clan that rules vice
o Mafia is dictatorship and rules vice
o Mafia acts like war clans, no morality no lifestyles only corruption and buisness
oAncient Rome virtually was a bunch of crooks, elected by crooked schemes
-- Is there even such a thing as an American "mainstream" culture or only American subcultures? --
The US culture is a composite of many cultures and is characterized by the belief in…
o The Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law in the governments of our society, -- we govern ourselves via the constitution and legal system
o Everyone has the right to pursue economic opportunity – freedom from monopoly or repressive laws giving more concise refute to race
o Everyone has the right to pursue any religious freedom – not that the gov cannot sponsor it just as apposed to a state sponsored religion
o Everyone has the freedom to organize or to pursue social interaction
o To organize politically as long as does not violate the law
o freedom of economic, social, or mental lifestyle, we do not value one culture over another
-- How much should a country be multicultural diverse than one culture? --
(For what i am about to say first a brief definition...)
Canard – A false or baseless usually derogatory statement, story, or report; for example a rumor
It’s a canard, meaning it doesn’t matter how diverse a country is, it just matters how unified they are behind a common set of goals.
The United States was unified when terrorists attack or when we go to war but into the war they fall apart on the home front, disunity between Democrats and Republicans led to a disunity of common beliefs. What are you willing to fight and die for is the national character and common soul of the nation
-- Are we unified through our diversity? --
Only to the extent of our common belief, it’s a canard, same as above
I think that immigrants coming to this country should realize they are in a new country, and a uniquely different country, and that by claiming it as their home they should immerse themselves in Americana, contributing to society and government and, in essence, becoming an “American” through that integration. This does not mean, however, that I feel they should abandon their traditions or forget their heritage, but should not isolate themselves in “Little Italys” or “Little Russias” in which no one speaks English, participates in democracy, or attempts to become involved in the rest of American society. I know for certain that if I moved to a foreign country, such as, for example, Sweden, I would learn the language, speak the language, associate myself with many diverse groups of people, and participate in any local or national governmental happenings with zeal.
On the subject of language, immigrants should learn and speak English, which is our national tongue. Our democratic government, which is widely ignored by immigrants, is a privilege, and new citizens should vote and participate.
However, remembering and honoring ethnicities is also important. I never forget that, though American above all, I am still a descendent of my Swedish and Welsh ancestors that emigrated to this country. I still eat Sankt Peter’s bread and lingonberries for Christmas, and my grandmother still bakes me aebelskeebers for breakfast. But there are people who take cultural identity too far – for example, schools in America that pledge allegiance to both the American and Mexican flag.
I think that America’s need for unity stems from its position in the world – America is the richest and most powerful country in the world, and this leads to a case of national big-headedness. Our domination in foreign affairs leads to domination at home. That is why some think we can force people to conform, and force immigrants to assimilate into our community. That’s where I disagree. Immigrants should not be forced into the melting pot, but willingly engage themselves by their own free will and self-motivation.
In short, identity as an American over identity of your native country, and not being apathetic about your new country, but involving yourself in society and democracy, and learning the language.
Post a Comment
<< Home