Professor of Political Science
Saint Joseph’s College – New York
Introduction
During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, an attempt to grapple with the persistence of racism and the growth in migrant presence in public consciousness in the United States (US) has led to a reconsideration of the dominant assumptions of the leading paradigms on racial and ethnic relations in this country. This reconsideration has, in some ways, contributed to the reformulation of these assumptions in some paradigms, and to retrenchment in some others. This reconsideration is particularly evident in academic works but also in official pronouncements and public discourse. Many of the questions centered around whether or not race still matters, e.g., as a basis for affirmative action; whether or not ethnicity matters, e.g., as a basis for bilingual education; whether or not there is an intersection between race, ethnicity, class, and gender; and what is the appropriate action to take given the situation, assuming consensus exists on the meaning of this situation.
In the US, where the dominant ideological perspectives are of the conservative and liberal orientation, the questions asked obviously pertain to specific content of policy rather than to matters of justice and equity inherent in fundamental structures of society. It is no wonder, therefore, that much of the policies coming out of the US Congress and various departments and agencies of government presuppose no fundamental defect in the system pertaining to the nature of race relations and to issues dearest to the heart of communities of color. It will remain so until the dominant liberal and conservative paradigms shift in the way in which they dictate the content, tone, and direction of the debate. The arena of this debate is necessarily the public sphere where appeals to reason and emotion – particularly by the practitioners of the two dominant paradigms -- are motivated by a desire to validate existing privileges. But for whom these privileges accrue to is even a contested question. That is because answer to it inevitably determines how this American “nation” is defined in terms of its inclusiveness or exclusiveness.
In one section that follows, the basic assumptions of the dominant conservative and liberal paradigms would be critically analyzed. Some of their respective leading proponents, along with their works, would be surveyed in an effort to understand their attitudes, fears, and rationale for the kind of policies that they advocate. This will be followed by another section dealing with an alternative paradigm, herein referred to as structuralism, whose assumptions about the nature of society, its problems, and the solutions proffered differ substantially if not radically from those of conservatism and liberalism. To provide a context, however, a presentation of some demographic data – principally from the Bureau of Census – is deemed appropriate.
I. The Demographic Background
This reconsideration coincides with the influx during the 1980s and 1990s of new immigrants from around the globe but particularly from Spanish-speaking and Asian countries, complemented by a surge from Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the Cold War. As much as 44 per cent of immigrants during these decades came from Latin America and the Caribbean, about 37 per cent came from Asia and nearly 15 per cent from Europe. By the mid-1990s, as much as 8 per cent of the US population was considered foreign-born. An overwhelming percentage, (nearly 75 per cent) of these immigrants has settled in six states, namely: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois. About 10 per cent of the newcomers are considered refugees from different countries, about half of all legal entrants are women, and the flow of undocumented (or illegal) aliens has been, for the same period, almost 30,000 annually.
The rate of growth in Hispanic American and Asian American population in the US, based on Bureau of Census data, is particularly notable. From 1990 to 1999, the rate of growth of the Asia-Pacific community was at 43 per cent to 10.8 million, while the Hispanic population grew at, for the same period, 38.8 per cent to 31.3 million. Meanwhile, the country’s Caucasian population increased by 7.3 per cent to 224.6 million during the same period, and the Black population experienced a 13.8 growth rate to 34.8 million. The Native American, including the Alaskan native population, registered a growth rate of 15.5 per cent to 2.3 percent, constituting less than 1 per cent of the total US population.
*Paper prepared for delivery at the “International Conference on Multiculturalism, Nation-State and Ethnic Minorities in Canada, the United States and Australia,” held in Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki-ken, Japan, December 9 to 11, 2000. Support for this project is through a generous grant from the Japan Ministry of Education (Monbusho) through a project on comparative multiculturalism in the United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia, under the general direction of Dr. Tsuneo Ayabe, Josai International University, Sakado-shi, Saitama-ken, Japan. Interpretations and factual errors are solely the responsibility of the author. Subject to revision. Comments welcome. Please send all correspondence to Kenneth E. Bauzon, Department of Social Sciences, Saint Joseph’s College, 245 Clinton Ave., Brooklyn, New York 11205. E-mail address: KBauzon@sjcny.edu.
II. The Dominant Paradigms: Conservatism and Liberalism
A. The Conservative Perspective
By looking at the facts and figures in the preceding sections, one may readily be tempted to draw certain conclusions that would place one ethnic group or another in either a favorable or an unfavorable light, depending on what perspective one takes. One such perspective – drawn from the conservative tradition -- generally regards in a dim light precisely the kind of immigration and demographic patterns herein narrated among Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. This perspective laments the apparent loss of a uniquely American identity due to the presumed corrosive effect of the new migrants (prominently Hispanics and Asians) coming in large numbers but who either fail or refuse to assimilate. Representing this perspective is Peter Brimelow who, in his book Alien Nation, notes that as much as two-thirds of immigrants to the US fail to “assimilate” and fears that the US is in danger of being “overrun” by “brown-skinned immigrants from Latin America and Asia.” Brimelow, himself a former Englishman who currently serves as senior editor of Forbes magazine, advocates closing the gates of immigration, albeit temporarily, in order to stem the tide of an otherwise uncontrollable immigration and to enable the US to maintain its economic predominance, social cohesion, and sense of selfhood.
The same themes are amplified by various other authors masquerading either as irreputable experts on interracial and interethnic relations or as demagogic peter pans whose nativistic appeals unfortunately attract a large number of unsophisticated readers to their political agenda. Such catchy titles as Americans No More by Georgie Ann Geyer, a career journalist; The Real American Dilemma by Jared Taylor and associates, concurrently serving as staff officers of a conservative monthly publication American Renaissance and who apparently profess no fear or reluctance in being labeled as “racist”; and The Case Against Immigration by Roy Howard Beck, a Washington-based editor of the conservative The Social Contract, all of which were published within the last five years, are intended to elicit an emotional reaction or strike a patriotic chord among those whom they consider “real Americans” against the inflow of what Geyer condescendingly regards as “non-Americans.” Geyer predicts that the economic stratification, the on-going process of multiculturalism, and the apparent lack of moral consensus ensuing from the recent waves of immigration all would lead to a crisis characterized by the “death of commitment to the whole [and] the weakening of the citizenship bond.”
Taylor and associates, on the other, express alarm at the projected increase in population by Asians, Hispanics, and blacks by year 2050; they believe that this increase will happen at the expense of whites whose population is projected to drop from 74 per cent to 50 per cent by the same year. Further, Taylor and associates explain with concern that “[w]ithin 54 years…, whites will be on the brink of becoming just one more racial minority. And because whites are having so few children, they will be an old minority. Within just 34 years they will already account for less than half the population under age 18, but will be three-quarters of the population over 65.”
For his part, Beck makes the case for the halting of immigration for the reasons that it depresses wages, which leads, in turn, to the deterioration of communities, the degradation of the environment, and the breakdown of families. Beck’s simplistic logic somehow suggests that immigration is a singularly more significant factor than corporate greed, for instance, in the widening of gap between the rich and the poor in this country, in the depression of wages among workers – especially in inner cities where blacks and others at the bottom of the labor market are mostly affected, or in erosion of family values. So important that even a significant segment of the membership of a supposedly progressive environmental organization – the Sierra Club – has signed on to the idea of immigration restrictions proposed along the lines outlined above. The rationale offered is that the further influx of new immigrants would inevitably lead to an increase in population levels that the environment would not be able to sustain. Consequently, Beck argues the drastic curtailment of the current immigration flows to what he regards as the “traditional levels” and that this argument is gradually gaining legitimacy and urgency among whites.
One other work noted for its intellectual acumen and uncompromising assault on what is labeled as the liberal-led “civil rights industry” is Dinesh D’Souza’s The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society. In this book, D’Souza argues a number of important points including: a. black failure in US society is due not to racism but, rather, to distinct cultural differences among peoples; b. therefore, race does not and should not matter as basis for identity and public policy; c. the liberal crusade for affirmative action serves only to stunt, rather than encourage, the progress of blacks and other minorities in this country just as it fosters dependency on their part. In the end, however, D’Souza’s implications are that, if blacks and other minorities are poor, the blame lies with their undesirable cultural traits and habits and not so much on social and structural barriers that perpetuate racial and economic inequalities.
Politicians have taken up these same themes as a means of scoring points with the voters. Pat Buchanan, a perennial presidential candidate in the Republican camp, has argued, one may recall, for the construction of a fence quite literally along the US-Mexican border as a deterrent to illegal migration from “south of the border.” In California, Proposition 187 was pushed for by the Republican Governor Pete Wilson for the purpose of denying social services, e.g., health, education, and welfare, to undocumented aliens perceived to be taking advantage of the generosity of the state. Mindful that this Proposition won by a healthy margin of 20 per cent, Governor Wilson told the people of California that any further expansion of the welfare system in his state would not be tolerated. In New York City, what appears to be a concerted and systematic anti-immigrant drive is being carried out by Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani targeting specifically the taxi drivers, pushcart vendors, community gardeners, squeegee men/boys, messengers on bicycles, and street corner- or subway-musicians, a large percentage of whom belong to the migrant and/or underclass community. With his pampering of the police department, Giuliani has significantly reduced the budget for the public schools, particularly funds for after-school programs, at the same time that abuse by the overwhelmingly white police establishment has escalated against the poor and people of color in the city. Elsewhere in the country, the battle is being fought over whether to allow bi-lingual education or to insist on English-only as medium of instruction and official communication. Already, 19 states have adopted an English-only legislation to preclude the use of state funds for bilingual education and similar programs. There is little doubt that the language question will continue to be a battleground between conservatives and advocates of multiculturalism.
B. The Liberal Perspective
In 1908, a play debuted in Washington, D.C. with a title that would thereafter be used as a metaphor for the US in the first quarter of the 20th century and beyond. It was entitled “The Melting Pot” written by an English Jew named Israel Zangwill. The central theme of this play – reflecting the on-going influx of European immigrants and their aspirations at that time – held the promise of assimilation into American life and to the ideals democracy.
The term “assimilation” would thus play a central role in the elaboration of the metaphor’s meaning. One of the early attempts at defining the term was by Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess who, in their 1922 book, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, wrote: “Assimilation is a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life.” In a later refinement of this definition, Park appears to give prominence to cultural behavior as when he regards as the measure of the success of the assimilation process the attainment of “cultural solidarity” among peoples of diverse racial background or cultural heritage in such a way that they can “get on in the country” or that they may be able to “find a place in the community on the basis of… individual merits without invidious or qualifying reference to… racial origin or to… cultural inheritance.”
An important underlying assumption in these definitions is that the racial and/or ethnic background of citizen does not and should not matter, an assumption quite similar to the conservative assumption explained in the above-section. The rationale for this is that the categories or requirements of citizenship are both color blind and ethnic-neutral. As Milton M. Gordon explains, racial groups and ethnic nationalities are “legally invisible.” Because of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Gordon explains, “the American political and legal system recognizes no distinction among its citizens on grounds of race, religion, or national origin.” This is reinforced by the principle of separation of church and state, through the Establishment clause in the First Amendment, which precludes the state from endorsing one particular religion or prevents citizens from freely exercising their religious beliefs.
As a process towards the successful construction of a unified political community, Gordon specifies a number of essential requisites of assimilation that must be made manifest among both native-born Americans and the new immigrants. The first of these is a mutual recognition by all groups that each has a legitimate right to be in this country and to pursue happiness to the extent allowed by law. Secondly, immigrants are expected to acquire the necessary competence to function effectively in the workplace in order to avail themselves of economic opportunities that may lawfully come along. Thirdly, immigrants are further encouraged, indeed expected, to assume civic responsibility by being law-abiding citizens or, better, being actively involved in the political process. Lastly and most importantly, immigrants should always be conscious of their being Americans and to accord primary loyalty to the US above their countries of origin or their ethnic affiliations in a show of what others have regarded as “American nationalism.”
In the course of the 20th century, however, a confluence of historical events and existing socio-political and economic realities conspired against the promise of assimilation and betrayed the ideals of American democracy. This conspiracy has led to the persistence of what Gunnar Myrdal has called the “American dilemma.” Myrdal explains that this dilemma is “the ever-raging conflict between, on the one hand, the valuations preserved on the general plane which we shall call the ‘American Creed’, where the American thinks, talks, and acts under the influence of high national and Christian precepts, and, on the other hand, the valuations on specific planes of individual and group living, where personal and local interests; economic, social, and sexual jealousies; considerations of community prestige and conformity; group prejudice against particular persons or types of people; and all sorts of miscellaneous wants, impulses, and habits dominate his outlook.” Wittingly or unwittingly, Myrdal‘s characterization of the racial divide in this country has contributed in more ways than is acknowledged in the framing of the social problem almost wholly in terms of black and white. The consciousness that perhaps the problem should be redefined to account for the ethnic diversity – and the problems attendant to it – did not dawn until much later as shall be seen below.
In practical terms, social alienation, economic deprivation, and political disenfranchisement continued to define the lot of the blacks in the US. Critics of assimilation in the 1950s and 1960s from virtually all political persuasions pointed to these as evidence that something needs to be done. From the right came the call to reinforce and preserve “traditional” values and institutions that have long been the hallmark of white -- and Protestant -- predominance in this society, and to do so through the use of the political system’s repressive mechanisms, if need be. From the left came the revolutionary call to overturn the Establishment and supplant it with a more egalitarian one. And, from the center came the urgent call to reform the system through legislation, judicial action, and presidential initiatives alongside non-violent street protests. It was this approach that gained the sympathy and support of white liberal America in that it offered an alternative that was both non-threatening to the basic institutions at the same time that it gave vent to moral indignation against the injustices of society. From the centrist approach emerged the civil rights movement which, among others, demanded that the government take affirmative steps to redress the social, political, economic, and legal imbalances prevalent in the country.
An offshoot of the civil rights movement was the gradual appreciation of the problems of non-black minorities. The founding of the National Association of Colored Peoples (NAACP), while predominantly a black-led organization, nonetheless attempted to bridge the gap between blacks, on one hand, and other minority communities, on the other. The shared experience and aspirations of all minority groups was articulated by civil rights leaders most prominently Martin Luther King, Jr. who was tireless in his call not only for political and civil rights but also for a more inclusive, non-racial society. His famed “I have a Dream” speech envisaged a society where the value of a person would be based not on skin color but, rather, on character.
Despite the accomplishments of King and the civil rights movement, however, the decades following the sixties witnessed persistent problems in inter-racial and inter-ethnic relations in the country. The racial prejudices that accompanied black-white relations are now being complicated by the persistence of demands on the part of the other non-black minorities whose presence in this country can no longer be ignored. The title of Michael Novak’s book, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics, reflects not only the growing number but also the increasing political and social consciousness of these minority communities. In articulating a critique of the policies of the white liberal establishment, Novak complement’s King’s “dream” with what he refers to as the correlative “ethnic dream.” “It is based on self-interest,” Novak writes, “and on the solidarity of underdogs. It is a dream of the one inevitable, fundamental, indispensable coalition: blacks and ethnic whites, shoulder-to-shoulder. It is a dream of frank and open talk about the needs of each. Above all, honesty.” It was not unusual, therefore, that Novak would christen the decade of the 1970s “The Seventies: Decade of the Ethnics”, by entitling the lead chapter of his book as such.
True to Novak’s characterization, the seventies inaugurated a growth of sorts not only of ethnic cultural pride, e.g., ethnic-oriented parades, festivals, television programs, etc., but also of academic enquiry into the nature of ethnicity. The publication of the compendium Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, edited by two of the leading mainstream scholars, Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, signaled a new trend in the academe: the establishment of ethnic studies. All of these developments point to one thing: ethnicity, instead of being “melted in a pot” in a manner that transformed it from its original nature, was reasserting itself and its originality was being affirmed by the pride engendered among those who share it.
As a challenge to the basic assumptions of assimilation, ethnic revivalism found intellectual and ideological support among prominent mainstream scholars, in addition to those mentioned above. One such scholar was Horace M. Kallen, a sociologist, who has consistently argued that it was unrealistic and unfair to expect the new immigrants to give up their cultural and ethnic identity in exchange for admission into US society. He proposed that national policy should, instead, “seek to provide conditions under which [each] group might attain the cultural perfection that is proper to its kind.” Another, more contemporary scholar is Nathan Glazer. Glazer argues in his book We Are All Multiculturalists Now that the debate is essentially over as to whether or not ethnicity is here to stay. He concedes that members of so-called minority communities, especially the new immigrants, reject the status as “hyphenated Americans.” He contends that greater effort should be devoted to understanding, and then correcting, the failures that continue to alienate blacks and the minority communities more conspicuously in such areas as housing, employment, and education.
One such effort is offered by Orlando Patterson, another sociologist who suggests that “liberal racialization,” or the tendency among liberal whites to view American life through the racial lens, continues to inject racial bias in the relations between blacks and whites.. Consequently, blacks, despite significant economic and educational strides they have made since the end of the 1960s, continue to deprive blacks of a sense of power or responsibility. It is in response to this that mainstream black leaders, including Jesse Jackson , David Dinkins, and Shirley Chisholm have suggested a reorientation of the original meaning of “melting pot” by suggesting alternative metaphors to more accurately reflect the contemporary movement towards multiculturalism, e.g., “rainbow coalition”, “gorgeous mosaic”, and “salad bowl”, respectively. In addition to defending the legacy of the civil rights movement from right wing assault, e.g., the affirmative action program, these leaders emphasize the necessity of ethnic coexistence and cooperation as well as integration into the larger society while avoiding the pressures they believe are inherent in assimilation towards abandonment of ethnic heritage and adoption of the ways and manners of the dominant segment of the population.
Editor’s Note: Please download the free PDF to read Dr. Bauzon’s complete article.
Comments
Consider this...
Immigrants tend to make their homes in city centers instead of rural areas. These areas have better access to jobs, social services and a density that can support their cultural needs (specialty shops, religious centers, grocery stores etc.).
What we now think of as the clash between the interests of "city folk" and "country folk", may take on an element of color in the future.
What are the implications?
The Salad Bowl rather than The Melting Pot
I believe that the metaphor "The Salad Bowl" is much more effective and explanatory for the vast amount of cultural and ethnic differences we have in the United States. "The Melting Pot" suggests that we must have everyone conform to one standard, but the new salad bowl metaphor explains that we can embrace the difference of other individuals and make a cooperative effort to create something good.
The influx of different races, religions, etc. will always be. We might as well learn to work together than to separate ourselves into different categories.
I think that “melting pot” is
I think that “melting pot” is inaccurate terminology for describing the nature of cultures within the United States, but I don’t believe that “salad bowl” necessarily has a positive connotation either. Rather than “embracing the differences of other individuals,” the “salad bowl” metaphor appears to draw attention to the separation of cultures, leading to the dangerous labeling of those who are different from us as “others,” a practice that dehumanizes people and causes divisions within society. The “melting pot” metaphor may not be a reality at this time, but the idea of cultures “melting” together should not be mistaken for assimilation, but learning to coexist instead of simply accommodating the differences between cultures within our society.
I like how you clarified the
I like how you clarified the meaning of the term "melting pot." It does not mean millions of different cultures being disregarded for a homogeneous mass. After all, if you mix a bunch of unique ingredients together in a pot, the resulting mix isn't bland - it's full of flavor, a result of each individual. The same is true of America. I don't think the idea of "melting together" means that people are losing their identities in the process; I think it means coming together as part of a blend, and working together to make something that is - to continue the food metaphor - delicious.
I agree with the usage of the
I agree with the usage of the term "salad bowl" instead of melting pot. Working in an agency that aids the community, I see residents and materials such as ads for local drives, cultural programs, educational type programs etc. and I they all represent acceptance and staying true to one's culture rather than losing site of oneself to become more "Americanized". Cooperation today, in my opinion, happens a lot in schools and the workplace. Schools celebrate diversity and their diverse student population. Although the workplace can be a very discriminatory place some might say, many workplaces do accept one's own cultural beliefs without forcing them to assimilate to our own beliefs.
yeah, a lot of of people from
yeah, a lot of of people from rural areas choose to live in cities due to the fact that jobs and education for their children is much more accessible in cities yet this issue may also brought negative impact since not all of these immigrants may have a better job so there will be a great possibility that they may be categorized under poor families. This issue has some sort of similarities to the brand new report which shows that the biggest quantity of children living in poverty in the U.S. is Latino. The report analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau. It is the first time the largest U.S. numbers facing youth poverty have been among non-whites. The investigation suggests several possible causes of the trend. Article source: Record high for Latino children in poverty, report shows
I agree that the failure of
I agree that the failure of immigrants to assimilate will weaken the American culture. Yes America is all about accepting different people from all around the world but America is one country. In order to preserve our "citizenship bond" all immigrants should learn English since it is the dominat language of the country and become accustom to the American way. They can still bring the values of their cultures to America but nust be American first.
Potential Shift of the Dominant Group?
It is interesting to consider the idea that white people will be a minority in the United States by 2050. This country’s history has been shaped by the dominant influence of whites, so will society change once the current minorities become the majority? Will the matrix of privilege and oppression change to accommodate the decrease of whites and the simultaneous increase of Asians, Hispanics, and blacks? It is difficult to imagine the United States without racism and inequality because these unfortunate ideologies have been ingrained within our history and culture, but perhaps this demographical shift will institute the introduction of a more egalitarian society. Although this shift will undoubtedly affect the nature of politics and culture as a whole, it may prove to be a positive change for American society.
This was a very interesting
This was a very interesting discussion, and I think both paradigms presented here (the conservative and the liberal) have important and valuable ideas. In fact, there are several points presented by each side of the issue that I am able to find myself agreeing with. On the liberal side, I definitely feel as though the "salad bowl" metaphor is apt, and that America should embrace multiculturalism and pride in heritage. Each and every person - and each and every person's BACKGROUND - has helped to shape and influence the fabric of the United States, and no one should be asked to denounce his or her legacy. People, personalities, and lifestyles are not homogeneous, and America should not be either.
At the same time, though, it must be recognized that the United States IS a nation, and it is called United for a reason: the people who reside within its borders are Americans and share a common thread, which is calling USA home. I am very proud of my Irish, Italian, and Polish heritage, but at the end of the day, I am an American before I am anything else. And since America is my home, I put it first. While I don't have any problem with celebrating where you came from, I do think that where you are NOW needs to be in center focus.
I think it is also important to recognize that the conservative paradigm is not against immigration; it is illegal immigration that presents the issue. I would not be here if it weren't for immigration, and neither would most of the citizens of this country today - the process of legal immigration is one of the most powerful and inspiring parts of our country. Choosing to become part of this great nation is beautiful. People who do not follow the correct procedures and legally become a part of America, though, should not be allowed to reap the benefits of being a naturalized citizen. It demeans our borders, trivializes the process through which millions of immigrants have become legal citizens of America, and takes social services away from Americans.
melting pot not necessarily best
i think that sometimes bringing together many races, ehtnicities and religions is not for the best. The United States faces many issues that it would not face if it were not a melting pot. Issues such as allowing abortion would not exist if people were divided by beliefs rather than geographic locations. People today define themselves as beloning to a certain nation regardless of the practices of that nation. I find it hard to think of myself as a US citizen before the fact that I am catholic, because catholics dont think it is alright to commit murder and call it womens rights. Things like this make it better for a country to be more insular rather than a melting pot.
What the United States will look like 30 or 40 years from now
Between 30 and 40 years from now, our country is going to look differently with respect to all the different ethnicities and cultures that will be living here. At least in my lifetime, I have noticed a change with the increase in numbers of minority groups/ different ethnic groups coming to the United States. At least from what I have witnessed, this doesn’t correlate to them becoming the dominant group. It is just like how there are more women in the United States, but they are still considered the social minority. By the year 2050, the Whites population is expected to drop to 50%, which accounts for a 24% increase in the population size of minorities or immigrants. From my interpretation on why the population size of minorities is expected to increase, is due to the immigrants that are arriving now. When they get to be financially stable, or when they think they do, which will take several years at least, they will start having children. This will increase the population size of their ethnic group. You could argue against this by saying that Whites are also choosing to reproduce. From what I have witnessed in my life, I fell like more minorities are choosing to have large families compared to Whites. To me, it is odd to see a White family that has more than three or four children. I have meet some people that are White and they have more children than three or four, but it’s not everyday you hear that. Minority families tend to have larger families because of the education that they receive. Some minority couples may have never received sex education, which could have taught them about the repercussions on having a large family. It’s going to be interesting to witness this change in our diversity.
Dominant Group Power
In history, it has been the White men who has dominated and held control over the nation and its laws. Although great strides have been made to extend the privilege and power of White men to people of color it would be naive to say that discrimination and racism no longer exists. When a certain group holds the majority of the power and benefits, that power is not easily given up. And to this day, White men still remain the dominant sex and race with higher wages, benefits, and privilege. And as long as they still retain some of that power, I truly believe that they will do everything in their control to preserve that power, despite the rising rates of immigrants entering into the country. It reminds me of White colonialism in 3rd world countries who retained all the nation's resources, wealth, and power despite the fact that they comprised less than 5% of that nation's population. I predict the same outcome and predicament even when non-white people will outnumber the White race here in America.
The White Man
The 2050 comment about the White population becoming the minority is some what obvious in some major areas. It mainly appears in the 90s generation where there is more open-minded individuals. I haven't seen many places that celebrate diversity and besides most people do not take the time out to understand someone's else ideals,values, and beliefs. There are some caucasian people that feel they are inferior to others besides African American. And everyone conforming to one ideal will never happen and that the "Salad Bowl" ideal is out of the question more than likely.
Assimilation
I have mixed feelings about the assimilation of immigrants. From one perspective I do not think it is right to force someone from a different culture to change their views and beliefs. Forcing anyone to change any aspect of themselves will cause hardships and controversy, this is common sense. Another perspective though is I feel that immigrants need to understand American culture and laws. Having an understanding will educate the immigrants on what is right and what is wrong. I think immigration assimilation to some degree is necessary, but also I think Americas need to become more culturally competent so there is less of a divide between Conservatives and Liberals. Also, becoming culturally competent allows us in the United States to become more equal as a whole.
America is one country..of
America is one country..of many different people. I hate to sound cliche but the country is founded on immigrants and will prosper through immigrants. Immigrants have been coming into the country for years and those who have failed to assimilate have in no way shape or form harmed the american way of life. Even once immigrants are assimilated there are numerous hardships ranging from citizenship ( which is difficult to obtain even if you came to the country legally) to learning English. So to force them to conform sounds anti-american.
I do agree that learning the language is crucial but is it a necessity? Not entirely because most stores have advertising in English with a Spanish translation right next to it. Even tv shows in English have the little a caption that says also transmitted in Spanish. So in a sense immigrants are already assimilated in a sense thanks business and Dora.
There is no Immigrant Problem
To say that immigration is a problem in the United States is to undermine the very principles that it was founded on. That being said one cannot ignore the cultural clashes and conflicts that these immigrant groups may cause, however the answer to this problem is not to shut these other cultures out, an argument popularized by the conservative thinkers of today’s America. This will only further alienate the immigrant populations and increase incidences of cultural clash. On the other hand, the hard line liberal principle of expecting assimilation also produces ill effects. The only answer to this problem is instead of fighting other cultures and forcing them to assimilate, we let them acculturate in the manner they best see fit. Forcing immigrant groups to conform to our way of life only causes further friction between cultural groups who see us as robbing them of their cultural heritage and traditions. In a land of freedom, people should be free to act as they like and be cultured how they see fit not have an idea forced upon them.