1) Velcoli mainly focuses on what being an “American” means by analyzing American history. He opens with the idea that America is formed by states rather than one unified mass, which later connects into his ending concept of cultural pluralism. He formats his essay by studying the formation of the country and the challenge of its acceptance of fundamental Enlightenment ideas. This leads into the progression of America attempting to take control of its immigrant population in the upcoming decades and evolving theories of how immigrants integrate into society. He divides immigration into America’s earliest settlers (English Protestants, which become the majority, ruling class) and the 1(1841-1980),2(1891-1920),3(1960-present) waves of immigrants. He juxtaposes original American ideals and the concept of birthrights, specifically “all men are created equal,” with later nativist policies and restrictive immigration policies that would bar Native Americans, Chinese, and darker people. He explores 3 theories of the “Americanization” of immigrants: Assimilation, Melting Pot (both failed), and Cultural Pluralism. He regarded assimilation as the hegemony inflicting their power over others and results in a racial caste system. The Melting Pot theory, creating a new race/culture through the mixture of all immigrants, never really happened. His last and resounding theory is Cultural Pluralism, in which people live together, while maintaining their core culture.
I appreciate his analysis of America’s viewpoint of immigrants throughout history, but he delves to deeply into a less acceptable theory, assimilation, rather than focus on a more acceptable, applicable theory, Cultural Pluralism. He is very opinionated, clearly pro-immigrant and liberal, such as his impassioned statements on pg. 17 about immigrants being in the biggest need of humanitarian rights, yet they struggle to overcome the Anglo authority. I understand racism is bad and Americans still believe in similar ideas, but at some point this essay becomes an argument against nativist beliefs and fails at producing a successful counterargument. He directly states “pluralism prevails” and states that “the outcome is much more complicated.” Why does pluralism prevail and what are the complications? And I know that cultural pluralism is a generally new theory, but if it is correct the author should be able to explains how this theory has been working throughout time rather than just briefly mention it at the end. That would definitely be more insightful.
2) These two articles are like my life story. They pretty much give a clear overview into New York society, as immigrants integrate into a new life, and circumstances as a second generation American. Their “studies”affirm a lot of stereotypes, like Asians are good at school, although these studies seem like general interviews and a small group consensus. Generally these reports say that second generation immigrants are becoming the New New York and they are mainly considered American with raising status in position in the job market. They define the upwards climb through high schools, colleges, jobs, and politics -mostly within the confines of their ethnicity. I find Kasinitz’s article interesting because he compares the growth of the immigrant communities to condition of native New Yorkers ( presumably here since the 50’s at least), especially the downturn of native black and hispanic communities. Why is that? Overall, I prefer Foner’s paper because she takes a more detailed, holistic view with many subcategories. Kasinitz seems to be determine to convince that second generation immigrants are straight up American and melded more together, while Foner focuses more the internal struggle with identity and change within ethnic communities. I found the food and child rearing section particularly interesting because it shows the city effecting the people, not the other way around. Is Foner’s study the same as Kasinitz’s? Many of the same references. I love how CUNY is mentioned as an integral part of the city’s progression.
