The phrase “melting pot” was originally used in the 18th century to describe how people from varies of region gave up their original cultures, backgrounds or races and combined them into a common identity. Although this term was created to emphasize the future unification of immigrants in America, this process of “melting into one” could also seem as forcing others forget their own culture and fit them within the new American culture.
In the reading “Trans-National America,” the Randolph used the events during the WWI to explain the idea of “melting pot” was still hard to reach. In his second paragraph, he described how people still had their nationalistic feelings within them and would keep them even it was during the war period by stating
…show more content…
Even if the nation tries to assimilate all races into one, the blending of cultures and identities were the reason why America is call the home of all. One solution he provided for this situation was like a double nationality. While the people came to the United States to search for new way of living, they still could have hold their own culture identifies as well as passing them down to the future generations. The historical arguments Randolph used to support the critique was the events during the British Colonists period. Different people came to the new world with their own perspectives including new hopes for the future, and we should not force them to combine their ideas into one.
In the other hand, Randolph's historical arguments was totally contrast with those asserted by Evans in support of the Klan's conception of Americanism. Evans was more support of keeping the national pride as whites and wanted to enforce the common culture. In his idea, there was a strong pride or “supremacy” for whites and a denial or “lookdown” for the cultures that were different.
In my own opinion, I will more like to use the term salad bowl instead of the melting pot to describe America. The idea of melting pot is too much of forcing, but within the salad bowl, each individual can still have his or her own part and identity while some of them combining with each
In the historical analysis, The U.S. War with Mexico A Brief History with Documents, written by Ernesto Chavez provides insight on the events that lead up to the war as well as how the U.S. citizens perceived the Mexican citizens throughout the war. Prior to during and following the Mexican American War, Mexico and her people were critiqued by white Americans throughout the mid to late 1800s. The loss of the war would incur harsher judgement as well as treatment. The U.S. citizens viewed Mexican citizens before, during, and after the conflict through demeaning their culture, racial and economic exclusion. Many U.S. Citizens would distinguish who would be American by pigment and culture alienating Native Mexicans who shared the land with white
This is the reality of the American melting pot, which I have experienced with very positive results. Not only did my family teach me racial tolerance as an American, but many people have also treated me with respect from differing racial and ethnic backgrounds. This is the politicization of my identity as an American, which has taught me the social values of tolerance in American society. More so, New York City is a very diverse place in which the immigrant can blend with other people fare more easily than in rural areas. In my early thirties, I continue to experience a much better life in the U.S. than I would have experienced living in the Dominican Republic.
A common argument for the separation between blacks and whites is that they could not live together. This argument was made by segregationists including, Thomas Jefferson who believed whites and blacks could not live together. Jefferson states in a “Selection from Notes on the State if Virginia” in the year 1787, that “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollection, by the blacks, of the injustices they have sustained ; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race” (Jefferson 199-200). Jefferson believe that the distinction of color, the injustices sustained by blacks and whites, and rooted prejudices will prevent whites and blacks from living with each other. Marshall disagrees with the notion that whites and blacks cannot live together.
“That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” a recently popular metaphor used to describe New York’s diversity” (Sotomayor 74-78). She was using the melting pot, and the salad bowl to make listeners or readers think about how the metaphors relate to diversity in New York. The metaphors explain the diversity quite well. The salad bowl refers to how many different cultures can be integrated into one society like veggies in a salad. And the melting pot which means mostly the same thing where in a society many different types of people blend together as one.
These words demonstrate why white southerners viewed the African-Americans as problems; they saw black southerners as partakers of their resources. Ida B. Wells, an investigative journalist gave another reason in her article “Lynch Law in America.” She stated, that when “newly-made citizens chose to exercise their suffrage… another raised a cry against ‘negro domination’ and proclaimed there was an ‘unwritten law’ that justified any means to resist it.” These unfounded sentiments shared by the white southerners
College: An Unsuccessful Diversification Project In her article, “Why America is Self-Segregating,” Danah Boyd emphasizes the importance of diversity in our social connections and explains, as members of a nation, we are segregating ourselves. Through culture, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic background, fragmentation is occurring daily. Boyd realizes that diversity is hard, but believes it is a crucial part of a successful democracy. Boyd explains that while the original goal of social media may have been to connect people from different cultures and nations, its effects have been working in the opposite direction.
A melting pot implies that the cultural diversity of minorities “melts together” into the American culture. The melting pot is a symbol for the immigrants’ conformation to the society of the United States. It becomes obvious that Canada’s and America’s attitudes towards immigrants are the complete opposite. Canada does not expect immigrants to give up their cultural identity, and America expects them to assimilate, and become a part of their society. Multiculturalism states that people may live in a society without surrendering their culture or traditions.
Although the examples he uses are inarguably about race, they brought forth injustices to the greater public becoming important parts of our American history and growth as a nation. Reflecting on our past mistakes while forgetting our growth is not a valid argument when attempting to prove that diversity is inconvenient. America has endured hard times before and we have been able to persevere through the strength of all its people, including those of color. These examples are frequently used to elicit a response in favor of the author’s point of view without needing solid facts from basing it on history. By using these types of examples, Buchanan was able to back up his points without evidence, making the essay an example of poor writing and
In 1926 American society was changing rapidly through immigration and many races of people were bringing their cultures with them. A man named Hiram W. Evans was the imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Evans made the argument that these new immigrants were destroying the racial definition of what an American should be. He felt that true Americans were part of the Nordic race because the early pioneers fit into this category. The Klan’s point of view was that America should stay American and maintain this Nordic race of Caucasian people.
He was a member of the powerful Dallas chapter and subsequently was elected as the Klan’s Imperial Wizard in late 1922. He transformed the Klan into a massive business organization with a largely secret membership of over 5 million people and enormous political influence. He was a pivotal leader of one of the country’s most widely known hate groups at a vulnerable time in our history. Many men feared the multiple consequences of immigration throughout the country and how it would affect their economic, political and cultural standing. Evans was a master at interpreting this current of fear at loss of control and channeling it to increase his organization’s size and therefore, power.
Founded during the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877), The Ku Klux Klan was an extremist hate group that violently challenged social and political laws which protected certain minority groups. The Klan’s deliberate use of terror and violence reflected the passion held for a racial hierarchy, with whites at the top of the social structure. The presence of KKK was seen not only during the Reconstruction Era, but also during the post–World War I era (1920s). There are distinct similarities and differences that define the motives of the 1860s Klan and the reincarnated 1920s Klan; however, I believe these characteristics hide the true representation of the intolerance of American citizens.
For many new immigrants coming to America, it is difficult to adjust into the new society. Many come to America without the basic knowledge of English, the new immigrants do not have the ability assimilate to American society because of the lack of possible communication between the immigrant and an native. Non-English speaking immigrants that come to America face harsh challenges when trying to assimilate to U.S. society because immigrants are often segregated into ethnic communities away from natives, Americans do not know basics of words of other well known languages, and the lack of government funding education programs. Assimilation into a new society is difficult enough, but when the society pushes any new immigrants to separate part
We see how the leaders of this country, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, had prejudice thoughts about these two different ethnic groups, how prejudice was built into society and the
America’s identity is defined differently by every individual. Ideally it was to be a place of freedom and acceptance, identified by its message of liberty and hard-work, however the question arises whether America is a melting pot in which only one culture dominates or it a mosaic of many peoples’ histories. America’s potential and true identity lies within its ability to assimilate and create a natural individualism despite race, class, and immigration standing. A country as powerful and influential as America is within industry, politics, and socioeconomics cannot be abstract in definition.
Ethnocentrism is an action to judge or make a conclusion of another culture based the person’s own culture. Generally, an ethnocentric individual tends to evaluate other culture with his own culture’s standard and value, therefore he often believes that his own culture is better than other cultures. It’s very common that the ethnocentrism in a person may lead to dislike, verbal discrimination and frustration of other cultures. In short, this type of people always considers themselves as the supreme in the society. One of the best examples of ethnocentrism in U.S. is definitely among Americans, we always consider ourselves as supreme among people from another developing country because we believe America is the most influential country in the