In high school, we learned two theories behind immigration in America – the idea of the melting pot, and the idea of the salad bowl. The melting pot implies that people change and assimilate based on the traditions of their neighbors, while the salad bowl is used to describe an America where people reside in the same country, but are unique, holding onto and displaying their pasts. Although I used to think that coming to America meant that people must leave behind their previous lives and cultures, in reality, the fact that they have the right to do the complete opposite is precisely what draws people to immigrate here.
As far as the Gerstle article, I agree with Handlin when he disagrees with Park. Park writes believes that out of necessity, all people eventually assimilate in order to get along with one another and achieve. Yes, people learn about the politics and laws of America in order to live and work according to the constitution; however, many don’t assimilate. Many neighborhoods are dominated by one or two ethnic groups in which people practice the same religion and hold on to the same traditions. Similarly, in reaction to the Walzer article, I disagree that people who are culturally anonymous (meaning they let go of their past ethnic identity in order to becoming part of an American melting pot) are necessarily better Americans. While he provides a valid argument that during the American Revolution the loyalists held on to their past and were antagonistic to the goals of the colonies, today, many “hyphenated Americans” aren’t supporting countries that are enemies of America, so their allegiance to other countries and cultures has no bearing on the politics of America. Additionally, America doesn’t have a draft since enough Americans are willing to enlist in the army, even though their family’s past is based in a different country.
I think that whether American citizens associate themselves with another nation in addition to the U.S., or if they simply view themselves as American-Americans, they face difficulties in America, but work hard to overcome them. The case study shows the negative consequences of discrimination and stereotypes on immigrants, but also gives evidence of support that is there for them, for example, affirmative action. The case study also found that second generation immigrants are more successful than their native born counterparts. I think this is so since their immigrant parents instill in them a drive to succeed. There are new “ethnic niches”: The jobs that certain ethnic groups are beginning to hold show a higher level of education than ever before. Immigrants maintaining their old cultures are able to be successful in America.
In the Walzer article, Gleason writes “An American nationality does in fact exist”, but the very words of the constitution “separation of church and state” preclude America from having a specific national religion and ethnic traditions. The principles that govern America and that have allowed it to stand the test of time, are the freedoms that allow people to practice any religion they desire and to live the lives they want. After all, wasn’t that the reason the Puritans came in the first place?
