Student 1

Jane Student

EN 102

Professor Don Mackey

5 April 2011

Soup or Salad?

Texas: the 28th state of the Union; it was admitted in 1845 after the Texas War of

Independence in 1836. By 1846 the Mexican-American War had begun and the lands of Texas

which had been under the influence Mexican culture for centuries were being fiercely fought

over. America maintained control over the lands, however, they remained strongly under

Mexican persuasion as opposed to American. In this era called the twenty-first century, over one-

hundred years after the Texas War of Independence and Mexican-American War, what becomes

of a third-generation Chicano whose ancestors can easily trace their bloodlines through Texas,

even prior to its statehood, when said Chicano is unable to produce a proper birth certificate

(Golash-Borza 2)? What becomes of this individual is based solely on whether or not America is

truly a melting-pot or a mosaic.

There’s something to be said for the notion that America is a melting -pot of great people

and equally great cultures. What’s to be said, however, is that it couldn’t be further from the

truth. America is such a largely diverse country that ascribing one specific metaphor lends itself

to great difficulty, and even more difficult is transforming one metaphor into another. That said,

if any specific metaphor should exist for a nation with such a myriad of peoples, it should be that

of a salad, or, “mosaic.” Once Americans see American culture as being separate, diverse and

pluralistic, then the focus can be placed on breaking down those barriers and only then will there

be the potential for a melting-pot society.

Student 2

The war between amalgamation – which a melting-pot theory would suggest – and

pluralism – in reference to the salad theory – in America has been long and fierce, and first

began during the early twentieth-century. During the beginning of the twentieth-century,

America’s first large wave of immigrants was comprised of those from a litany of Northern,

Eastern and Western European countries. Most notably, these immigrants came from Italy,

Ireland and other Eastern European countries. To wan this influx of immigrants, the United

States passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921 which was then closely followed by the

Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 which served to limit the immigrants of certain

countries, as national origin became the new basis for immigration, with a preference towards

Western European immigrants (Pluralism 2).

During this period, as the immigration acts were being passed, the Straight-Line

Assimilation theory came into action. This theory suggests that assimilation is in fact

synonymous with Americanization and states that within three generations, assimilation and true

Americanization can be reached (Holli 1). The first generation is incapable of fully integrating

into American society due to strong nationalistic ties to the homeland and this generation

remains rooted in ethnic enclaves, such as the Chinatowns in San Francisco and Chicago,

Germantown in Philadelphia and Little Italy in New York. The second generation then moves

from the enclaves and slowly integrates more into mainstream society by lessening their ethnic

ties and becoming marginalized between the two different cultures, that being the ethnic-

minority culture and the dominant American culture. By the time the third generation comes

about, all ties will be lost and it is this generation which will fully identify with being American

and thus, “full Americanization” is realized. The Straight-Line theory works perfectly for

European immigrants, as by the third generation, they cannot be racially separated from the

Student 3

dominant Americans, as they share the same physical features and racial indicators. Therefore, it

is this notably indistinguishable factor between the predecessors of immigrants and the

dominant, Caucasian American population which is the cause for Americanization and true

assimilation (Golash-Boza 1). For those outside of the White race, Straight-Line Assimilation

and Anglo-Conformity is almost impossible and even if it were, the cultural cost of conforming

to the Anglo-American culture is grave, as W.E.B. Dubois in “Striving of the Negro Peoples”

writes, “What after all am I … Am I an American or am I a Negro? Can I be both? Or is it my

duty to cease to be a Negro as soon as possible and be an American?” (Pluralism 2).

The theory of amalgamation was contrived much earlier than the Straight-Line

Assimilation theory, but the two are seemingly related and suggest that cultures can unite.

Amalgamation is the result of assimilation and proposes that differing cultures and nationalities

can combine, and when they do, a new sort of individual will spawn – the American. Many

notable early Americans felt that this was possible, from the renowned French-descent farmer, J.

Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur, to Herman Melville and Ralph Waldo Emerson (Pluralism 1).

This idea of creating a new race was very important to the young nation of America, as its

constituents were teeming with optimism with E Pluribus Unum as the motto.

The slight difference between the two theories is that assimilation is the result of

immigrants submitting to the dominant (White) culture and then replicating it, whereas

amalgamation is the result of a mixture of cultures. Amalgamation, therefore, does not require

that the end-product be White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, but this is how assimilation has been

manifested throughout America’s history as seen with Anglo-Conformity, which, as noted-author

Milton Gordon states, “Anglo-conformity tacitly rules out the viability of intact Old World

identities and cultural practices outside of the Anglo-American mold. It emphasizes the need for

Student 4

immigrants to “unlearn” their cultural traits in order to learn the new social practices necessary

for acceptance” (Nee 1). For the immigrants to “unlearn” their cultural traits, they must undergo

a four-dimensional change, the first dimension of which is marriage into the host, or dominant,

society. Exemplifying this point was the practice of exogamy during the 20th Century which was

fervently practiced and greatly eased Italian, Polish, Irish and Dutch immigrants’ transitions into

mainstream America and obscured their cultural distinctions. Residential dispersion, social

mobility and the process of losing and acquiring language are the three other dimensions to the

process (Holli 1).

Pluralism traces its roots back to the earliest moments of America’s history as a nation.

Shortly after the Revolutionary War, writers began to latch onto the idea that there was a certain

vitality in America’s various cultures which was unrivaled in the Western World. As the

generations passed, however, and America witnessed an onslaught of various immigration

waves, amalgamation, assimilation and Anglo-Conformity became the hotly debated topics and

pluralism fell to the wayside. After the Immigration Act of 1965 there was renewed interest in

the theory and so today, America as a mosaic (pluralistic) nation has become the preferred

metaphor and assumes the name ‘multiculturalism’. “Its proponents argue that individuals come

from distinct communities and that their differences deserve respect as constituent elements of

the nation” (Dobel 1).

The problems with viewing America as a melting-pot are numerous; the biggest problem

of all being that it is a faulty perception. The reality of America is that it is robust and full of

diversity and contains a litany of different peoples, cultures, religions, backgrounds and other

demographical features. Amidst all of this diversity are the inherent stereotypes which quite

naturally come with variance. In a melting-pot society, where a nation is pluralistic in descent

Student 5

and yet homogenous in being, pervasive negative stereotypes would not exist. In America as it is

known today, stereotypes are commonplace. Take for instance the small Midwestern town of

Fairfield, where Waltz, a young, white male, who, despite the extreme rarity of violence in the

tiny town believes the stereotype of Latinos as gangbangers and is convinced that most Latinos

do not speak English (Navarro 1). This idea coincides perfectly with the 2009 study performed

by sociologist Jeff Timberlake of Ohio University which shows that, “In comparison with other

immigrant groups, the majority of 2,150 Ohio respondents ranked Latinos lowest in every

category: intelligence, violence, use of government assistance, poverty, and assimilation” (1).

Says Timberlake, “Huge swaths of Ohio have almost no new immigrants . . . less than 4 percent

of Ohioans are foreign-born. It's hard to imagine how very many Ohioans are forming their

opinions based on local concrete interactions with immigrants. They're absorbing national-level

debates” (1). That these perceptions and stereotypes of Latinos are dangerous, is an

understatement. These perceptions have gone so far, not only in the town of Fairfield, Ohio, but

all across the nation, that they have transplanted themselves into reality and play out in a variety

of fashions on a daily basis. At Waltz’s school in particular, the stereotypes and distinctions of

race and ethnicity played out on campus where the Mexican and White students didn’t mix; they

remained in their separate lives and held fast to their preconceived notions. After a rape case

involving a nine-year-old White girl and a Mexican man, the town exploded with anti-immigrant

sentiments: the house was torched, the Ku Klux Klan arrived, there were raids by Neo-Nazi

participants and declarations had been made that, “The time is now to stand against this and

cleanse our country of this brown flood” (2). Ardent declarations such as the one proclaimed by

the Klan in Fairfield point out the fallacy in believing that America is an amalgamated country.

Student 6

How can there be the distinction of a “Brown flood” if we as a nation have melted into one

congealed entity?

Adding to the problem of identifying America as a melting-pot is the tricky perplexity of

the label “American.” In a truly blended, melted, mixed and homogenous nation, using one title

for all people would be befitting. Through citizenship – whether by birth or arduous obtainment

– the label “American” is permitted. This is a fact known to most all and it works perfectly on

paper. However, who is really “American”? Who is being referred to when one thinks of an

“American”? Do fair skin, perhaps blue eyes, sturdy, conventionally attractive features come to

mind? The unspoken truth is that the term “American” is reserved exclusively for Americans of

European descent, or, White Americans, as it were. For the rest of Americans, an ethnicity and a

hyphen are required, suggesting that they are only partially American (Golash-Boza 1). African-

American, Asian-American, Cuban-American; even the original inhabitants of America are

marginalized: Native-Americans. This ludicrousness calls out America the Great as America the

Pluralistic, America the Separated, America the Divided, as we aren’t even united de facto by a

common label. This fact of partiality and separatism is blatantly obvious, as, “in a six-month

study of 65 U.S. newspapers, the term ‘American’ was found many times, but the expression

‘white American’ was exclusively used in juxtaposition to another racial category, usually

‘African-American’” (Golash-Borza 1).

The matter of hyphenations only adds to the difficulty of breaking down ethnic ties,

which has proven ostensibly impossible. Presumably-speaking, if a non-White immigrant family

goes through three generations in America, they would still remain only partially American and

are not fully indoctrinated into the mainstream dominant culture. Four, five, six, seven

generations could go by and they would still have to adhere to the hyphenation rule and

Student 7

becoming solely “American” would elude them due to their racial composition. The compelling

issue is that in this large country, bustling with diversity, only non-Whites are seen as belonging

to an ethnicity. “Part of being white is being able to ignore the prevalence of racial

discrimination in U.S. society … In the United States, the ethnic identity ‘American’ is an

unmarked ethnic identity just as white is an unmarked racial identity” (Golash-Borza 2). In a true

melting-pot society these sharp distinctions and reservations of ethnicity would not exist.

These complexities and quirks regarding identifiers, labels, ethnicities and races are seen

only in pluralistic countries, such as the United States, and to combat the mosaic composition of

this nation, critical steps would need to be undertaken in order to bring about a truly

amalgamated country. The first and most obvious step would be that of relinquishing all

segmented labels and hyphenations. Every individual residing in the United States with an

established level of citizenship would be considered exclusively “American,” whether on paper

or in speech. No longer could there exist the titles of “Asian-American,” “Native-American,” or

“African-American.” These distinctions are the breeding grounds for bigotry, prejudgment and

differential treatment.

Once the basic step of common identification is established, the differences amongst

people could be addressed. In order to become a melting-pot society, people must open up the

lines of communication with others who they perceive as being different and challenge any

previous misconceptions or stereotypes they had of those who are different. This basic step in

exposure has been proven time and time again to work effectively at combating ignorance and

opening up the doors to multicultural awareness (Zinn et al 100). However, mere exposure to

other cultures and peoples is not sufficient; it must be meaningful and earnest. Merely watching a

television show with characters from other ethnic backgrounds does not suffice and will not

Student 8

result in any long-term solutions to cultural awareness, multiculturalism, or amalgamation. One

of the biggest contributors to stereotypes as they exist today is the media, especially in the realm

of television programs, as they greatly contribute to negative perceptions of non-White peoples.

“In a study of the portrayal of Hispanics in the media, Lichter and Amundson (1997) found that,

‘compared to both Anglos and African Americans, television's Hispanics were low in number,

low in social status, and lowdown in personal character [and] frequently portraying violent

criminals’" (Golash-Borza 12). Hence, watching television in hopes of satiating desires to learn

about others is a poor solution, and should be avoided. Meaningful exposure, encounters and

interactions with others are required in order to dispose of prejudice and stereotypes, whether

byway of talking with coworkers, classmates or neighbors who differ in race or ethnicity, or

choosing not to sneer, but rather engage a wayfaring inner-urban struggler in conversation before

letting them pass by.

The critical component to exposure is the act of challenging stereotypes and the

willingness on an individual’s part to rectify, rework and remodel previous notions. Constant

meaningful exposure with others who are different is not always an easy task, and there may not

be ample opportunities for many to do this. As it is now, America in many senses is still

segregated and most notably so in housing patterns. Housing patterns greatly affect educational

opportunities, as for the majority of the states, where one attends public schooling, of which the

majority of American youths attend, is dependent solely upon where one lives. If a neighborhood

or town is segregated and seemingly homogenous, the school district will most likely reflect this.

This sad happenstance results in that for many, the reality is that there lacks an abundance of

opportunities to meet others who are dissimilar. These individuals in particular must work more

ardently than others to put into practice flexible and critical thinking when encountering those

Student 9

who are different. If the differing person does not fit the criteria for whatever existing

stereotypes, then the stereotype or perception must be changed, whether for the good or bad. This

new perception should then be carried on until the next encounter with another person of that

same background, and again, it should be challenged and modified if it differs. In essence, the

individual uniqueness which every person inherently possess must be realized and appreciated,

and on that basis alone must judgments be made..

Similar to exposure, education has also proven to be a helpful solution in lessening

negative preconceived notions of others, stereotypes and even racism. Through the forum of

diversity and multicultural classes, helpful and credible information of others can be derived. As

opposed to merely watching a television show about a Korean-descent family, for example,

actual valid information can be obtained in classes such as these. Knowledge regarding cultural

practices, language and customs replaces sound-bites and laugh-tracks, and at the end of the

class, appreciation can be gained instead of momentary satisfaction from watching a sitcom.

From workplaces to schools, churches and other religious edifices and community buildings,

classes teaching appreciation of others can easily be implemented.

Having diversity classes, open dialogues and exposure to other cultures is just a start,

generally speaking. Specifically speaking, the start of multicultural awareness through education

should begin during children’s formative years, which would require the reworking of children’s

books. Books are one of the most fundamental mediums used to transmit ideas, customs, values,

attitudes, gender roles, traditions and expectations (Morgan 1). From the books used during a

child’s adolescence to those which are used in secondary schooling and universities, a change

must be made, but in particular, starting with the children’s books. Studies show that there are

large disparities in the texts which are available to children in regards to the pictures which they

Student 10

contain, the information they provide, and the characters’ stories they revolve around (Zinn et al

123). To say the least, children’s literature is not authentic in representing the stories of ethnic

and racial minority groups, and in a 1972 study performed by Czaplinski, it was revealed that in

the prestigious Caldecott-winning books from 1940-1971, males outnumbered and were

overrepresented in comparison to females in both pictures and text (Morgan 1). Even more

striking is the severe underrepresentation of Hispanics in literature intended for children in

primary through secondary school, when at this time, Hispanics are the largest and fastest

growing minority population in America (Morgan 2).

Discrimination manifests in many ways throughout literature and it would be false to

claim that the more blatant form of discrimination – by omitting female and minority stories and

characters, or stating that “x” group performs better in sports, or “y” is more academically gifted

– is the most pervasive. Most notably, in higher-level literature, such as in Interpersonal

Communications textbooks, which correspond to a recommended course in most high-schools

and colleges, marginalization covertly takes effect almost unwittingly to the readers. “For

example, most textbooks describe only one (European American male) pattern of eye contact in

conversation wherein listeners look at speakers more than speakers look at listeners. Textbooks

suggest that this pattern is ‘normative’ and should be used to guide prescriptions regarding skill

development for ‘good’ or ‘competent’ communication. Little or no attention is given to non-

European American patterns” (Peterson 1). This trend continues even when slight attempts are

made at incorporating ethnic and racial minorities into the text, and the attempt becomes even

more abrasive, as it distinctively lists the behaviors of non-White groups as being “alternative.”

Adhering to the unspoken rule that the label “American” is reserved for the White, dominant

group and ethnic and racial minorities should be marginalized with hyphenations, are popular

Student 11

Interpersonal Communication textbook writers and sociologists, Trenholm and Jenson, who

rampantly use “we Americans” without a modifying identifier and then using explicit modifying

identifiers such as “Native-Americans” when referencing “other possibilities” of behavior

(Peterson 1).

Overall, males are highlighted more than women, White Americans are shown more

predominantly as compared to so-called minorities, in pictures White Americans are typically at

the forefront or performing more complicated tasks, and only the accomplishments of White

Americans are highlighted in primary, secondary and collegiate levels, with perhaps slight

mentions in a separate chapter for those of minorities (Zinn et al 141). These damaging and

blatantly obvious discrepancies must be corrected before America can ever testify to being a

united, amalgamated country.

One of the first practical outcomes of striving to make America amalgamated by

interacting and learning about other people is social and multicultural awareness. Simple, social

and multicultural awareness is the instant gratification of this process, as it can be seen almost

immediately. A young woman of Cambodian-descent strikes up a conversation with a sturdy,

degree-holding, Eritrean man and changes her stereotypes of African’s being malnourished and

poor – as she had previously learned from absorbing literature – and instantly, she is more

socially aware (Morgan 2).

When the racial, ethnic and cultural barriers begin to break down through educational

attempts, exposure, and common labeling for all people, new horizons can be reached. As

individuals begin shed their strong ties of categorization by adhering to working on the solutions

to change America from a mosaic to a melting-pot, they will slowly begin to realize the great

numbers of human similarities which they share will all individuals. The greater commonality

Student 12

people share with one another, combined with an open mind free of prejudice, marginal

sentiments and preconceived notions, the greater the possibility of blending two culturally-

differing families. This practice of exogamy is more likely when culturally-distinct groups have a

mutual, substantive appreciation of one another, and exogamy is the key ingredient to turning

America into the great and glorious melting-pot – the amalgamation of America, of course, being

the greatest of all outcomes.

Once the necessity of multicultural exposure is realized, education of others’ differences

is obtained, and the stripping of hyphenated identifiers is actualized, the United States will well

be on the way to shedding its pluralistic skin and become the melting-pot which was once so

popularly theorized, and as J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur dreamed, “[America is a country

where] individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men” (Nee 1). This “new race of

men” ultimately will be one “gooey, indistinguishable mass society” (Dobel 1), and it will be

impossible to believe that deportation was the result of the third-generation Chicano whose

ancestors could easily trace their bloodlines through Texas – even prior to its statehood – being

unable to produce a proper birth certificate because his American-ness was under question. In the

amalgamated America, he would be able to live comfortably and easily in the United States

without fear of being questioned, just as the great-grandson of an Irish immigrant can live today

(Golash-Borza 2).

Student 13

Works Cited

Dobel, J. Patrick. "Kitchens & Rivers: Metaphors for America." Commonweal 124.4 (1997):

11+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Golash-Boza, Tanya. "Dropping the Hyphen? Becoming Latino(a)-American Through

Racialized Assimilation." Social Forces 85.1 (2006): 27+. Academic OneFile. Web. 10

Apr. 2011.

Holli, Melvin G. "E Pluribus Unum: the Assimilation Paradigm Revisited." The Midwest

Quarterly 44.1 (2002): 10+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Morgan, Hani. "Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Misrepresentation in Children's Books: a

Comparative Look." Childhood Education 85.3 (2009): 187+. Academic OneFile. Web.

19 Apr. 2011.

Navarro, Lygia. "The Melting Pot: How Anti-immigrant Sentiment Can Divide a Community--

and What Can Be Done to Unite Residents." The American Prospect 22.3 (2011): A18+.

Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.

Nealy, Michelle J. "Poll: Racial Groups View Each Other With Mistrust." Diverse Issues in

Higher Education 24.24 (2008): 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.

Nee, Victor. "Melting Pot." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2008. Retrieved

April 12, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-

3045301512.html

Peterson, Eric E. "Ethnicity and the New Racism in the Basic Interpersonal Communication

Course." Women and Language 18.1 (1995): 41+. Academic OneFile. Web. 19 Apr.

2011.

Student 14

"Pluralism." Dictionary of American History. 2003. Encyclopedia.com. 12 Apr. 2011

<http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

Zinn, M. B., Eitzen, S. D., & Eitzen, K. S. (2008). Social Problems. New York: Prentice Hall.