Leslie Cruz
February 23, 2023 Cultural Diversity The United States can be seen as an example of a nation where different perspectives are regarded as effective. In this essay, a closer look is taken to analyze if the different perspectives are taking effect positively or negatively. A melting pot is a way that the United States is typically referred to. A nation in which different cultures can live amongst one another under a governing body. The United States can be seen as a successful example of Global and State Primacy, however, are they the most effective and optimal perspectives to implement?
Global Primacy can also be seen as the previously mentioned, melting pot. The melting pot was an idea that aimed to educate, assimilate and
…show more content…
has also been seen in World War 2, where Native Americans, despite suffering injustices at the hand of the governing state, fought on its behalf (Kelleher and Klein 51). The deciding identity in State Primacy is the governing body of the said state. In this example, it is the U.S. and the lawmakers of the country. The governing body of the United States is left to decide what is best for the people within the state, regardless of cultural differences. This is because the prominent aim of State Primacy is to place the needs of the state before the needs of the sub-cultural community that one is a member of. State Primacy can oftentimes be viewed as a continuously succeeding governing culture as it continues to be used in the United States. However, as instructed and explained by Kelleher and Klein, State Primacy can result in a hierarchal system that places people of similar culture and ethnicity as the governing body of the state (53). Those that are not within the same ethnicity, or culture, or willing to be complacent in the decisions are not considered when deciding what is best for the overall state (Kelleher and Klein 52). As a result, the ones not in agreement are viewed as inferior and disregarded. Additionally, since the well-being of the state is prioritized over the ethnicities, regardless of patriotic acts, the ethnicities continue to be distrusted. Previously mentioned were Native Americans that coded for the U.S. during WW2, were still untrusted due to their ethnicity and lack of assimilation to the state (Kelleher and Klein 52). State Primacy leaves room for feelings of cultural superiority and oppression of outside ethnicities and
“The settler colonial logic of elimination in its crudest form, a violent rejection of all things Indian, was transformed into a paternalistic mode of governmentality which, though still sanctioned by state violence, came to focus on assimilation rather than rejection.” –Patrick Wolfe, After the Frontier: Separation and Absorption in US Indian Policy, 13 Wolfe’s statement illustrates how the US government put more emphasis on legalized absorption of Indians into the White society rather than using forceful and violent methods to acquire the Natives’ land. After the colonization of the westward land and the end of the Frontier era, the US government’s method of assimilation of the Indians started revolving around allotment and blood quanta. With no place to further push the Natives away, the established Bureau of Indian Affairs and the government took action to eliminate the Natives culturally and spiritually instead of physically.
“Melting pot” is a common term used to describe the culture of the United States, as the country blends the values and ideologies of an abundance of different groups of people and individuals. As a result, there are a variety of possible positions on what it truly means to be an American. Some may argue that American identity depends on ethnic origin, religious background, or other personal characteristics. Others might claim that being American depends on whether one believes in liberty, equality, individualism, and justice. Nevertheless, Dwight Okita and Sandra Cisneros demonstrate that some perceptions about American identity can induce more harm than others.
In the article, “ ‘They Are Ancestral Homelands: Race, Place, and Politics in Cold War Native America, 1945-1961’”, author Paul C. Rosier, focuses on how during the Cold War Era, Native Americans used Cold War rhetoric and ideologies to fight back against programs designed against their sovereignty and their rights. It was the participation of many Native American troops during the Second World War, which led to a call for change. They had supported the war effort largely and expected to be given the privileges and benefits they deserved. However, with the large amount of American aid being used in the European Recovery Program, many Native Americans saw this as wrong, because their people were starving back home. With this criticism, President Harry Truman decided to seek Congress’s approval “to provide emergency relief to the Navajo and the Hopi; Truman hoped that such aid forecloses those who would criticize my foreign aid program on the ground that we are letting our First Americans starve”.
Again, unity is the key to the nation being safe from terrorists. Whereby, Former President Bush associates disunity with the goal of terrorist attack. To not be unified is to play into the terrorists hands. Once more, Carl Schmitt’s notions of sovereignty come into play, this time with a combination of the power to define “us” and “them” as well as the power to declare a “state of
jurisdiction faced insurmountable oppression. The United States now had dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, thus Native Americans could no longer manipulate the prior competing imperial powers. Natives who once served as integral power brokers in the “in between” society now lost their advantage. The disease of American prejudice spread more quickly than the epidemics that killed many Natives in the first place. Anglo-Americans possessed Native land without notice, raped and enslaved Natives, and even demanded complete extermination of the Native people in many areas.
This essay argues that states that are ethnically and culturally similar are more likely to engage in conflicts over
The US’s treatment of native tribes emphasized their inferiority to white America, denying the founding value of equality. The Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal.” Unfortunately, the US did not uphold this value with its relations with
The United States of America is the most diverse country in the world today. You can travel to the mountainy southern states, or the flat midwest, and the two places are basically completely different countries with completely different cultures. This is a direct correlation from in Colonial America how the colonies were so different even though they were all English owned. Because the English colonies were all so diverse, this led to our present day nation to be such a “melting pot.” Although England had thirteen Colonies in America, the Colonies had substantial differences between them, like how they were formed for different reasons, the basis of their economies were different, and the role religion played in each colony varied.
Because some powers overlap, there is often conflict between state and national government (Morone, 110). Although most people trust their own state governments more than the national one, there is still a strong sense of nationalism (Morone,
The actions of the United States government toward Native tribes have changed drastically over the course of American history. The pre-Civil War (1776-1860) period was characterized by a policy of displacement, removal, and assimilation of Native tribes as the United States sought to expand its territories. After the Civil War (1864-1890), the government adopted a policy of reservation-based Native self-determination, which allowed Native tribes to retain their autonomy and cultural identity. In the pre-Civil War period, the government’s treatment of Native tribes was largely based on the Doctrine of Discovery.
The treatment of Native Americans throughout the war left the impression that the United States could over power them in all scenarios, which would lead to the eventual relocation of all unassimilated Indians to reservations. The survival of the fittest mentality has continually been noted throughout American history and recently been seen in the United States’ involvement in the Middle East, driven by economic and political factors. The outcomes of the Second
Secondary Source Analysis In order to create his ideal Native American standing within the American Government, which includes the non-indigenous portion of the world acknowledging and understanding Native American issues with the United States and Internationally, Walter R. Echo-Hawk, in his A Context for Understanding Native American Issues, delves into the United State’s past Indian affairs as well as his goals for achieving this ideal. It is important to consider the author’s attitude towards the topic, his desired audience and the devices he used when analyzing the strength of his arguments. Echo-Hawk brings up the point, during the beginning of chapter two, that the general public is unaware of much of the happenings between the United
Pratt explains that this intersectionality of cultures produces ideas and perspectives about people of different cultures. In developing a broad course on cultures, Pratt engrossed students of various backgrounds and experiences such as a would soccer team produce. In the United States, there are numerous subcultures that fill the melting pot known as America. The dominant culture is that of white, middle-class, Protestant people of northern European descent. The subdominant cultures of the U.S. include Asian Americans, Jews, African Americans, Latinos, and among others, are seen as facing a choice to oppose, be opposed to assimilation or otherwise react to the dominant culture.
Losing one’s cultural knowledge, and therefore the reality of their culture, allows others to have control over their collective and individual consciousness as well as their destiny. In this case, it is clear that the United States government has had the dominant relationship over the Native
When cultural diversity is reduced through the popularization and diffusion of cultural symbols, one could speak about cultural homogenization. The world and its cultures become more the same, and it is often argued that our current society is in a phase of homogenization. To be more precise, a phase of dominant Western culture established with the help of