Identity in the United States is arguably one of the biggest issues among citizens and immigrants alike. Throughout the years, the immigrant community struggles to define itself – there is always a fierce battle between honoring the connections of the home country and assimilating into the new country. After all, what is the definition of a true American? Is it a certain look or characteristic? Or are we united by the fact that many of us have very little in common?

I personally support an argument presented in Waltzer’s article that we are somehow united by the fact that we are not united. This argument is additionally supported in Steinberg’s piece when he mentions that there is not equal assimilation for all parties involved – yes, for people of Caucasian origin the differences are becoming minute, but for those of Asian or African origin, the divide continues to exist. We are a state of many cultures and there is no solid nationality.

I do not have family members that recently immigrated. I am more of a third and fourth generation child, but I’ve come to know many people who are directly the children of immigrants. And these first generation Americans are truly following Steinberg’s argument about the melting pot – they are in a flux where they are trying to balance between their old and new cultures. I’ve seen a variety of responses towards this. Some of my friends have rebelled fiercely against their culture, such as refusing to answer in their parents’ native language or immersing themselves in national culture. Others have more of an appreciation for their culture, taking trips back to the country their parents emigrated from and frequently citing that culture. Occasionally there is even some apathy. These reactions show me that assimilation, if possible, is long and difficult, and that many continue to maintain their former cultural identities.

So maybe the goal isn’t to assimilate, but to instead appreciate the many different cultural differences – find our identity in many instead of one.

I agree with Stephen Steinberg that the term melting pot obscures the process of assimilation. A term that might fit better, and certainly adds to Michael Walzer’s article, is the salad bowl.  Immigrants arrive from overseas and often, or at least in the beginning, retain their old ethnic or cultural identity.  As time moves on, the Irish become hyphenated Irish-Americans, as they become accustomed to living in the United States.  According to Steinberg, this would be the first step toward assimilation, because the next, or if not, the third generation will simply be American, all Irish culture lost. However, according to the salad bowl theory, and Walzer, the American does not have to cancel out the Irish part of a person’s identity because in a salad, the tomato compliments or adds flavor to the lettuce, but the tomato is still identifiable as a tomato, and the lettuce is still identifiable as lettuce. In a sense, assimilation did happen, but it was not loosing an old identity in exchange for another, but rather adding another identity to an existing one.  Together in harmony, the two create a delicious salad or a multicultural identity, which according to Steinberg is the essence of being American.

However, there are some qualifications needed with this term. It depends on the fact that being loyal and dedicated to the United States is not secondary to the culture the immigrant originated from. An Irish-American is someone who is from Ireland, probably upholds Irish traditions and cultures at home, but in the greater picture, is an “American”, whether that simply means paying taxes or voting in elections and being part of the democratic process. This is entirely different than someone who is American-Irish. This person lives in the United States, but has no allegiance to the flag, and is therefore primarily focused on fostering a previous identity. They might also live in isolation to avoid contact with “Americans.” In this case the term salad bowl would not apply because the American-Irish do not have a multicultural identity, because they are not really American.  They are Irish living in the United States. Home would refer to Ireland.

Nonetheless, according to Steinberg’s view such isolationism might benefit the identity these people are trying to retain. The numbers he showed for intermarriage are high and cannot be ignored. Assimilation is happening, and once again, the term salad bowl does not apply, as these immigrants have abandoned an old identity for a a new one instead of adding on to what already exists.  How can these numbers be justified? It is possible that immigrants might come to the United States and purposely assimilate, like some intentionally remain isolationist. Some immigrants might want to leave behind the culture they came from in order to reinvent themselves as what Walzer would call American-Americans. This would be where the term melting pot would make sense, however Steinberg does not take into account that some assimilation, while not coerced by the government, might be intentional.

Again, the issue of segregation and discrimination has popped up in the reading, and I thought it an important topic to cover in my third post.  Nancy Foner repeatedly mentions that things are usually the worst for Dominicans, Blacks, and Hispanics.  Out of all the different immigrant groups that venture to the United States each year – Asians, Europeans, Russians, Asian Indians, Latin Americans, West Indians, and so on – the previously mentioned groups are faced with the most hardships.

My first question is this: what makes the Dominicans worse off than most immigrants?  What is going wrong in that country, and why are people leaving?  The main reason that I can think of is that Dominicans are coming here the least educated and least financially stable.  It would have been nice to be given a little more background history about the Dominican plight.

As for our country’s black population.  Have we seriously not gotten over our racism?  Apparently not, as both Nancy Foner and Stephen Steinberg have mentioned.  One line that stuck out to me in the past reading was when Steinberg states that “not until the structures of American apartheid are thoroughly dismantled and the persistent inequalities are resolved” will African Americans find their way into the melting pot.

There are two reasons for “white flight” that Foner poses.  One, as native-White Americans ascend the social and economic ladder, they seek the “green pastures” and leave the cities and their neighboring counties.  The second reason for “white flight” is the emergence of a Black middle-class and their desire for the same things – “green pastures” and middle class living.  What happens, is, white’s leave perfectly good neighborhoods and the result is town ruin.

How is it that we’ve come so far in Asian acceptance – remember the Chinese Exclusion Act of the early 20th century and the Japanese Concentration Camps during World War II?  Foner states that it is highly unlikely to find a white-suburb in the New York area that isn’t also populated by Asians.  If whites don’t flee from the Asians, why can’t we learn to accept the blacks?

Marina B. Nebro

Having grown up in the New York area, I witnesses the manifestation of many different types of cultures, and it just seemed that when people migrated to the United States, they would hold on to their old way of life and pass it down. I guess I was under the impression that the United States acts as more of a salad bowl than a melting pot. My ideas resembled those of Walzer’s hyphenation theory. We define ourselves based on where we came from, and where we are now. I, for example, call myself an “American-Jew”, “American” being the adjective, and “Jew” being the noun, the core.

It is interesting to think about Steinberg’s argument about the state of assimilation of ethnicities in the United States in terms of Walzer’s hyphenated American. The United States is unique in that it is a young country, and most of its citizens trace their origins back to another part of the world. At the same time, he points out that “Italian Americans…bear little resemblance to Italians in Italy, but…. Italian Americans are nevertheless a distinct community” When Americans identify themselves as being American and something else, Steinberg would argue that they are in the process of being “melted”. Thus, unique societies are constantly being churned out as the children of immigrants assimilate. Over time, Steinberg might say, descendants of immigrants with different origins will slowly begin to resemble one another as ethnicities continue to intermarry. Someday, perhaps centuries from now, there will be a true “American” ethnicity. American citizens will be a mix of so many different cultures, that they will have no choice but to simply identify as American, and nothing else.

By that logic, assimilation in the United States does not imply conforming to a certain existing norm, but rather, evolving into a something entirely new based on a combination of both “old country” and United States influence. It seems to me that because of the nature of assimilation in the United States, this form of ethnic evolution will never stop. As long as millions of immigrants from countries all over the world continue to flood in, we will see new ethnic communities form. The individuals in these communities create for themselves unique ethnic identities that are unlike those of their parents, and unlike those of their fellow Americans. As their children continue to melt, these identities will evolve as the influence of the colorful American society seeps in. In that sense I disagree with Steinberg that someday all ethnicities will be completely intermingled, and agree more with Walzer that “…an American nation-state….is not what it is now; nor is that its destiny”. The United States will always house children of immigrants who proudly identify with their native homeland.

Is the whole idea of the United States as a “melting pot”, the term we’ve been taught since elementary school, actually incorrect? Steinberg cites works such as an article entitled “America is NOT a Melting Pot” that suggest that immigrants hold on to their native cultures rather than assimilate into American culture. To say that America either is or is not a melting pot is a simplification of a very complex matter. The melting pot theory is not so black and white. Although America is not entirely a melting pot lacking any semblance of distinct cultures, immigrants must “melt” into American society to some extent if they want to be successful. Even though immigrants will probably retain many of their old cultural traditions, they must learn some aspects of the American way of life (whether these be the language, the customs, etc.) in order to obtain a decent job or even converse in daily scenarios.

Another matter comes into question when we speak of assimilation: What exactly is the “American” culture that immigrants are (or are not, depending on who you ask) absorbing? Walzberg suggests that to be American is to be “ethnically anonymous”. For example, when I traveled abroad, I answered the question “Where are you from?” many times. Now that I think about it, my answer “The United States” really didn’t tell the person anything about my background except where I lived. Yes, I live in the United States, but so what? My background could be Irish, German, etc, but being “American” does not reveal that. I think this is perhaps another reason that so many immigrants are attracted to America. As Walzberg states, American citizenship doesn’t require a person to commit to a specific nationality. Immigrants are, to an extent, free to assimilate into anything they choose because American culture is so mixed.

I also don’t think that immigrants are the only ones who assimilate into “American” culture. Native born Americans, such as myself, also assimilate into the immigrant cultures. If it were not for the large numbers of Hispanic immigrants that have come to the United States, I would not have my current interest in learning Spanish. As a preteen, I loved the little Asian store in Flushing that sold the stationary items with Chinese lettering and images on them. Native born Americans are exposed to the cultures of so many immigrant groups and that affects us as well. Therefore, I do think that the melting pot is taking place gradually, with Native born Americans and immigrants all doing the assimilating.

What makes America distinctly American?  According to Michael Walzer, “American” doesn’t exist.  America is defined as being everything.  We pride ourselves in including everyone – but does this hurt our chances of having an individual identity?

The Hyphenated American

I would consider myself super hyphenated.  I’m the type of person who likes to retain my cultural identity and ancestral past.  For that reason, I am a Spanish-Jewish-American.  But which of these identities is the strongest?  And if I identify more with my Spanish or Jewish side, does that make me less of an American than you are?  Walzer also struggles with where each identity fits.  Might I have a Spanish-Jewish cultural identity but an American political identity?  He later goes on to say, “no.”  My Spanish-Jewish identity equally impacts my political identity as does my American.  “The hyphen works… like a plus sign [or] a sign of equality.”

The Anonymous American or the American-American

This was one thing that confused me that I would like someone to clarify for me.  I would assume that an American-American is a person from Middle America who is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP).  Some of these people can trace their heritage back to the founding of the country.  If anything, I believe that it is these people who try to define “American” in their terms.  That’s why, when we first think of America we think of extremely patriotic things that link us back to the founding fathers.  Other than that, though, I don’t understand why Walzer sees them as extremely complicated.

Removing the Hyphen

Is this possible?  Is this the “American Destiny?”  Stephen Steinberg seems to be of the opinion that eventually America will become a true melting pot.  In the past, I had never really internalized what a melting pot truly is, but in reality it is a “fusing of… diverse peoples into a new amalgam.”  A new term I learned recently in my Honors in the Humanities class is “transculturation,” and I think this perfectly fits the melting pot definition: adaptation of new culture (acculturation) + forgoing of older culture (deculturation) brings about a new culture (neoculturation).  The real question is whether the melting pot is a desirable trait.  Why can’t our identity be defined as multiple identities in one?  What is the trouble with that?  Must we become like the countries we’ve come from?  Must we become France, “suspicious of any form of ethnic pluralism?”

Marina B. Nebro

What struck me the most about the first chapter in Nancy Foner’s book was the disappointing realization that until very recently I had shared some of these misguided sentiments, which Nancy Foner proves to be both inaccurate and biased.  One of the sections explored by the first chapter discusses the sheer magnitude of the diversity within New York City’s immigrant population, which was previously unbeknownst to me.  Each of the different categories, subcategories and sub-subcategories that exist among the different groups of people who have transplanted themselves to our shores carry with them a unique story, culture and identity that too often goes overlooked or thrown together with larger ethnic groups out of either ignorance or apathy.

The other misconception that I was happy to have corrected was in regards to the status of the arriving immigrants.  Like so many others, I was guilty of assuming that the only reason people would uproot themselves so drastically and move to another country would be as a last resort.  Foner shows that this is not the case in most scenarios.  Immigrants come to the United States for a multiplicity of reasons, but no matter the motivation, all share the common goal of bettering their situation in whatever way that means.

One of the main problems with the reputation that is undeservedly bestowed upon new immigrants is the stigma attached to the word “immigrant” itself.  When I think of an immigrant, the last thing that comes to mind is a financially secure mid-level executive with a college degree.  That’s not xenophobia or racism – it is just my unfamiliarity with the situation that most immigrants face coming into this country.  I think that the best remedy for the unfair comparisons between the two waves of immigration would be to spotlight achievements of recent immigrants to show the rest of the country that immigrants are not here to siphon off resources and take handouts.  Immigrants can have a work ethic at least as good as anyone from America and we should show them the same respect we show “natives.”

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This notable line from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet, “The New Colossus,” is addressed to the multitude of people who abandon their native lands of their own volition for a chance at a more auspicious life in the seemingly nonpareil city of New York. Lazarus suggests that most, if not all, of the individuals who emigrate from their homelands to New York City are those who are forlorn, impecunious, and rejected. Today, however, this notion is inapplicable as our day to day experiences as New Yorkers have proven that most immigrants are not those unfortunate beings who saw no alternative but to escape a life of extreme poverty and rejection. As Foner states, New York City boasts an impressive diversity amongst its immigrants who come from a wide range of educational and professional backgrounds and who flaunt a variety of skills and expertise.

I found that the most interesting aspect of this reading was the manner in which Foner goes on to debunk various other myths that many people hold about immigrants in New York City. These myths have to do with who comes to New York, why people come, and how they get here. Foner very systematically organizes and presents her information to the reader who first learns about who these immigrants are. Many people are very quick to say things like “all the Mexicans are taking our jobs” or “all the Chinese are taking over our schools” without any real knowledge of what kind of people actually make up our city. Foner tells us that there is no particular immigrant group that dominates our city and that after 1964, the immigration of people to New York from places as varied as Asia to Latin America to the Caribbean skyrocketed. Therefore, to say that the immigrants in New York are predominantly from one particular group is wholly unjustifiable.

The next question that Foner goes on to explore has to do with why so many people come to New York. My immediate response was because people want to escape persecution and because they do not have ample opportunities at success in their homelands. After reading, I realized that while these things do play a significant role in an individual’s desire to emigrate from their native country, there is another obvious yet often unacknowledged element that explains why New York is such a popular place for immigrants to settle. Foner reminds us that the changes in U.S. immigration policies over the years that have opened up a plethora of opportunities for a wide range of people all across the world. After the end of various immigration acts and restrictions, the U.S. has become much more eager to welcome immigrants, and therefore, one of the biggest reasons why so many people come to New York is simply because they can.

Immigration has been a constant topic of conflict among Americans. Most people have a set notion in their minds that immigrants come for money and jobs and give minimal thought to what they have left behind or what they have sacrificed to come to America. Nancy Foner sets forth several great points about their circumstances in just one chapter of her book

The ideas, which I found most striking, that she described, were the life and family most immigrants left behind and the quality of their journeys. She gave several examples of fathers arriving before bringing the rest of their families to establish a foundation for a new life. She continued to explain that it was, at times, difficult to enter and there were risks for each person. She also clarified how much some immigrants had to pay just to get here. They had no guarantee of a stable or “better” lifestyle but they were blinded by dreams of America. Once they arrived here, immigrants have to start over on their own especially if they didn’t come through a network. Throughout reading the chapter I constantly thought to myself, “Was it worth it?” As I read the appalling descriptions of some of the voyages immigrants underwent, I remembered my own trip here. I recall being six, sitting comfortably in an airplane and not having a care in the world. I could not imagine facing the adversities some immigrants encountered and those that others will encounter. Was being shipped like an ordinary object or traveling for days with fear of being caught worth the new life? I understand that for some, such as those with no freedom or those living in great poverty in their countries of origin, it was. Still, I wonder if life as an illegal immigrant in hiding without assurance of citizenship or a “green card” outweighs the life some people of these “skilled” people, as the author described them, would have been living at home.

I continued to question: What is the role of an “American” in terms of immigration? How can we help, if at all, in this developing situation? Most importantly, is it possible to control it anymore?

One concept that struck me from this chapter was the frequent contrast between one’s job in the home country and in the country of immigration. One’s economic, and therefore social standing in the mother nation can completely change when he or she immigrates. I know someone who was a very successful, educated high-end business manager in his native Columbia who then ended up as a janitor in the United States unable to acquire work that matched his training. This change of position most certainly challenges a person’s identity. We as humans are accustomed to identifying ourselves by the usual standards: ethnicity and religion as well as profession. Being in a position of power and authority gives us a sense of worth. When we go to work every day, using the knowledge and skills we studied for years, we feel like the time spent educating ourselves was worth it and that we are important enough to hold such a position. To go from a job that evokes such a feeling to one that the most unskilled person could perform adequately must be awfully degrading.

I always thought of immigrants as coming to America (or even New York) having very little education or meaningful work experience in their homelands. I viewed the notion of their finding any work in America, even the most unskilled of jobs, a huge success. If these people hadn’t gained the tools they needed in their own countries, surely acquiring any job was a triumph for them, right? The reading stresses that the centuries-old image of the poor “huddled masses” is dated. Although some do come to America unskilled and starving, the more common reality is that many immigrants held respected jobs in their home countries. I think it is important to recognize this when studying immigration because times have changed and the way we view (and treat) immigrants is subsequently altered.

One last thing that I found interesting was because immigration to America became so common in countries like Russia and Jamaica, “children played at emigrating”. While American-born kids like me in the United States were playing “house” and “school”, children in other countries were playing what they knew: moving. Sheltered American children who knew nothing but their comfortable house, town, school, etc, were happily playing “house” in their own, somewhat permanent house and constant life. Soon to be immigrant children were re-enacting a very grown up activity: changing lifestyles completely. Immigrating as a child forces a person to grow up very quickly.