I identified with the point Falzer made about American patriotism. It definitely seems like we prize national symbols and compete to be the most fervent supporters of our country more than other nations; what I had not thought of was that this could be due to our lack of a unified culture. I wonder whether this sort of compensation is a good thing. On the one hand, this sort of aggressive patriotism is probably responsible for our domineering presence on the world. A more timid nation probably could not have become a superpower on par with us, even if endowed with our resources and population. On the other hand, a nation less obsessively concerned with demonstrating its affection for itself may not have become as willing to fight countless wars abroad.

Steinberg’s statement that assimilation is happening faster than we think also struck me as unusual. We think of post-1965 immigrants as remaining stubbornly separate, divided by language and secured in their own urban enclaves. This is apparently untrue; the rate of assimilation among Asian and Latino immigrants is staggering. I found this to be true based on personal experience; furthermore, I think generational assimilation is fueled by the first off the boat. Immigrant parents often actively encourage their children to join American cultural life in order to maximize the children’s chances of success. They know that their children will be furnished with the languages and culture of their home country, but also that their children will speak English and be comfortable in American society. The combination is a powerful one, and there is a strong incentive for immigrants to ensure the assimilation of their children, even if it may be too late for them. Thus, the ethnic enclave as we conceive it may come to be a thing of the past, as the children of immigrants come to define themselves as more American than anything else.