I agree with Ashley when she writes that being culturally anonymous isn’t necessarily being a better American. In the Kasinitz article, the author mentions that many of the respondents termed themselves as “New Yorkers” rather as “Americans”. This is because, like Greg says, many people still link the term “American” with the Caucasian population in America, especially the ones that they most commonly see on television. Yet, the concluding sentence of the Kasinitz article argues that being a “New Yorker” is essentially being an “American”. And in New York, many of the people are not culturally anonymous. A lot of New Yorkers are aware that they come from immigrants, no matter how far back, and they often identify themselves with their family background, hence all the hyphens mentioned in the posts below (i.e. Irish-American, Italian-America, etc.)

In fact, I think that the definition of being an American, like being a New Yorker, is interacting with the different cultures that exist in America, as well as identifying with your own. Like Ashley and many people mentioned, America is more of a salad bowl than a melting pot. Many of the immigrants who come retain their language and customs. A lot of them do not melt completely into one. As Walzer mentioned in the article, the oneness is political, but the many is cultural. Assimilating to American culture does not mean changing every custom and habit, because being American usually means having some ethnic.

From the English on the Mayflower to the immigrants today, all of America’s history has to do with immigrants. In contrast with earlier years, I think there is less pressure for more recent immigrants to assimilate, since the term “American” and American culture is changing to mean identifying with ancestral roots. I think this is especially true in New York City, where immigrants and their children make up the majority of the population. I find it very interesting how a new hybrid minority culture is forming, as mentioned in the Kasinitz article. The inevitable interaction between the different groups of the second generations created a new culture, or rather, it is acting to redefine American culture as it was seen a few decades ago. This interaction is essentially “American”.

It’s a strange thing to suddenly realize that I had never really bothered to define a word that I had so readily accepted as part of my identity, and it’s even stranger to find that word just about indefinable.  If one thing caught my attention about these readings on what it means to be American, it was how widely (and sometimes subtly) the answers to such a fundamental question varied.

There’s undoubtedly a temptation to shy away from uncomfortable ambiguities when identity-defining terms like American come into play, and I think that explains some of the historical interpretations described by Morrison and Horsman.  It would be convenient to define American in terms of something as (supposedly) neatly delineated as skin color or religion, but if either ever served as passable definitions they certainly no longer do.

To me, Walzer’s treatment is the most satisfying, as it makes no attempt to oversimplify what is necessarily an incredibly broad and complex question.  Walzer understands that a country with such a large and varied population of immigrants could never really act as the sort of all-assimilating melting pot envisioned by many of the nation’s early philosophers; he acknowledges that today’s Americans often hold on to much of the culture and tradition handed down to them from the countries of their ancestors.  And yet at the same time, he does not question that there is indeed a culture that is truly and distinctly “American.”  Tap-dancing and spaghetti westerns and hot-dogs aren’t just dismissed as Frankensteined amalgams of various foreign cultures. When, like the authors of several of the other readings, Walzer writes about “hyphenated Americans,” the hyphen doesn’t mean that they are somehow less American or that they have merely failed to Americanize out their ancestral cultures: it is a symbol of the whole broad spectrum of cultural symbioses that all help define what it means to be American.

Also: CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!!

Along with everyone else, I’m leaning towards the salad bowl idea of America. It’s actually a really interesting idea. Think of a salad…of how many parts there are in it. The lettuce, the cucumbers, the carrots, the tomatoes, the onions, the croutons, the dressing. Sounds like a good salad right? Well it’s a balance. Like most things. Ask anyone you meet what they are, and I bet not one of them will say “I’m American.” Instead you’ll get a long list of nationalities and backgrounds. Everyone thinks of  America as one large salad bowl, but in reality, the people are the salads. Each one a different type, with different ingredients. The United States may be a bowl, but the people are the salads.

The hyphen between two cultures such as Italian-American or Irish-American…it’s just like the salad bowl. The first part of the hyphen, as Walzer points out in his article, is the deeper-rooted, more dominant part of who people are (the salad). The right side of the hyphen signifies the later addition of something foreign, something new, that enhances the first part and makes it different (the dressing). Many people find it hard to separate from their culture, and rather than discard it, they merely pile another on top and add to it.

This idea of adding dressing to a salad can be different for different people. Some people like the dressing on the side, others like their salad drenched. Still, others prefer dry salad and don’t touch the dressing at all. This can be related to the amount of influence people allow the new American culture to have in their life.

The different articles discuss different amounts of dressing added to the original salad. Kasinitz speaks of the immigrants who enjoy the dressing very much and come into highly metropolitan areas such as NYC and LA in order to drown their salads in dressing. These people gain a larger sense of “being an American” than most other immigrants do.

In Walzer’s article, he introduces the idea of co-existance, or many-in-one. This is similar to the idea previously presented of the dressing on the side. These immigrants have the liberty to and make sure that they only add as much of the culture as they deem fit, and no more. They are in control, and most of the times, prefer to keep their native cultural salad more dominant in the mix. In this way, they never need or want to be fully committed to American nationality.

Finally, Gerstle introduces the idea of plain salad with no dressing at all. He argues that the majority of immigrants have no interest in moving to the United States with the intent of becoming an “American,” but instead, they merely come looking for work in order to make money. This idea is “the land of separated man,” the salad and the dressing never touch because there is no reason for them to.

Like Greg mentions in his post, a lot of immigrants were always taught to cover up and hide their original nationalities. But the United States…America, is supposed to be a land of opportunities and of freedom and of acceptane. If we were to force every immigrant to become an “American,” there would be no identity for anyone. Every immigrant, every child of an immigrant would have no sense of self-identity. Also as Greg mentions, only 18% of New Yorkers can be considered natives. What would America be without the immigrants? We’d be very small, and very meaningless. America would be pure lettuce, with no flavor to our salad at all.

Greg brings up a very good point in his blog post about America : “The cultures in America, while retaining connection to their roots, are unable to avoid mixing.” I believe that America today is indeed a mix. This idea is completely separate from the common belief that America is a “melting pot”. The phrase “melting pot” would imply a fusion or merging of heterogeneous things in order to form a cohesive and homogeneous end product. This, however, is not the case. Like what Ashley said, America is more of a salad bowl. The individual components, such as the tomatoes, lettuce and croutons, can be easily seen and picked out. Yet, although, the salad consists of parts; it still works.

These parts, on a more symbolic level, represent the different cultures and backgrounds that so vividly characterize America. I think the idea that ToniAnn focuses on about how there is “technically no ethnic group called ‘American'”, is very accurate in this case. When I hear the word American, there is no distinctive image that pops into my head of how an American should look like. This is why I also believe that immigrants never assimilate completely. If this were the case, America would easily be defined. There would not be a mix languages, styles, foods and cultures because there would be one general norm. This yet again goes back to the idea of a salad bowl.

Personally, I feel that I have assimilated well into American culture, but I still keep some of my Chinese heritage intact. I would consider myself Chinese-American. My older sister, however, probably sees herself in a different light since she was raised in China much longer than I was. If you asked her what ethnicity she is, she would also answer Chinese-American, but she definitely would consider herself more Chinese than American. The hyphen, I think allows us to not exactly put a label on what we are. It acts as sort of a spectrum. I would lean more toward the right side of the hyphen, while my sister would lean to the left. I think this is a unique characteristic of America that no other country can boast of having. The answer is not set in stone and so we can essentially chose what we want to be.

When I refer to myself solely as an American – without any reference to my family’s ethnicity – I mainly do so to indicate two points: my birthplace, and my political freedom. I used to utilize the unhyphenated “American” title in order to differentiate myself from my foreign-born grandparents. Although I am also Irish and Italian like my elder relatives, I assumed that a simple label would culturally distinguish me from them, since I saw “American” as a culture in itself. This idea regarding the separation of family ethnicity and native birthplace has changed after consulting the readings, however.

Ashley brought up the point that immigrants in America have not exactly blended together as if in a “melting pot”; rather, they have maintained their individual and traditional values, as if in a “salad bowl”. I strongly agree with this statement; this clever analogy explains the existence of hyphenated titles in our country. Immigrants typically followed this categorization in order to maintain an identity while in a new and strangely diverse land. They indeed attempted to engage in American activities and contribute their own ideas to its development, therefore prompting the continual growth of “Americanization” (Gerstle gives the example of traditional immigrants embracing mass culture by participating in dances and attending local movies). However, they never entirely let go of their past, for it soon determined their social status. Color, according to Morrison, initiated Americans to “alienate” themselves from each other – in particular, whites against the “savagery” of non-whites.

This physical division is deeply rooted in our nation’s history, as Greg noted in his post. Caucasians with Angelo-Saxon ties declared that they were ordained to take over lands around them, because their governmental and commercial skills made them eligible. According to Horsman, “Americans found comfort in the strength and status of a distinguished racial heritage.” Likewise, immigrants in America in general found security in having an identity. Unfortunately, this caused the mixture of strangers to clash with one another over time; Gerstle mentioned how the Irish did not want to associate with those of dark skin because their wages were almost as equally low.

This week’s collection of readings made me realize that those in the United States – myself included – usually do not separate ethnicity and birthplace. They remain loyal to their cultural identity, and hold true to their American title as well. Realizing this, I now understand why my grandparents made the decisions they did about where to live in New York City – those with similar identities helped each other remain strong to their heritage while embracing the uncertainties of a new world.

Scrolling through the 932 songs on my iPod, about half of my music is sung in a language other than English and my Top 25 Most Played playlist includes artists from Italy, Columbia, Korea, Albania, Armenia, Romania, India and Israel. Sifting through the contents of my fridge, there are leftovers from my favorite restaurants: Thai Noodles, Shawarma, Spanakopita, Pizza, and Chicken Curry.   Anywhere else in the world, my taste in music and the contents of my fridge would seem bizarre and/or cause instant indigestion, but here in New York ethnic food and music is just a part of everyday life.

Our acceptance of and appreciation for other cultures is not at all surprising considering that everyone I know can trace their roots back a few generations to an immigrant from some corner of the world. It is because of this that I think that a purely American nationality does not exist (with the exception of Native Americans of course).  To be an American, more specifically, to be a “New Yorker” is to have no national identity: to be caught in-between worlds.

Nowhere else in the world will you find a more diverse mix who is both aware of and proud of their cultural heritage. The mentality of immigrants today has dramatically changed in the last few decades and the pride felt by the American-born children of immigrants towards their culture of origin is a relatively recent phenomenon. The abilities of immigrants and second generation Americans to speak other languages and practice the traditions practiced in other parts of the world have become skills to be coveted, opposed to things to be ashamed of.

In preparation for tomorrow’s in-class presentation, I spoke to my Grandfather on my mother’s side and my Father. Both were born and raised in the USA but have radically different perspectives towards their respective heritages. The contrast in beliefs between the two second generation Americans who are only one generation apart is, in my opinion, fascinating.

My grandfather, whose mother and father were both immigrants from Lithuania, was raised to  “become an American.” Instead of embracing his heritage, his parents pushed him to assimilate and were sure that only English was spoken in the household. Lithuanian culture and tradition were completely abandoned. He adopted the “American Dream” as his own and became an aerospace engineer and worked for Nasa.

My father, on the other hand, was raised completely differently. His mother and father, who were both immigrants from Sicily latched on to their traditions and never let go. They both named and raised their children according to tradition.  Named after my grandfather’s father and mother, my father and aunt learned the Sicilian dialect as their first language and spent every Sunday morning in church and every Sunday afternoon at their grandparents house along with their nine aunts and uncles Gandolfo, Jimmy, Michael, Robert, Rosa, Gandolfa, Gandolfa, Josephine, and Gina and seven first cousins Salvatore, Salvatore, Angela, Felicia, Felicia, Lucia, and Joseph.

Today, my grandfather and father behave exactly how they were raised to. My grandfather hosts barbeques on the Fourth of July and my Father makes the best stuffed shells in the family and continues to visit his mother, aunts, and uncles every Sunday. In the long run, I think my dad is way better off and way more American.

The differences between the citizens in this country is what makes America so great and draws so many different people to come here. The best part of living in New York for me is the fact that everyday I meet someone who is completely unique. There is always something new to learn, a new food to try, a new lifestyle to be exposed to. The great thing about our generation, in spite of its many pitfalls, is that we are much more open to other cultures compared to the generations before us. While neighborhoods in the past have been very culturally specific, I think that, in a few decades, that is going to change. The definition of “American” needs to be redefined from WASP to include everyone who lives, works, and contributes to the American society and economy not just the brandy sipping, wine swirling, White European elite. To be an “American” is to be an immigrant.

I agree with Ashley that America is more of a salad bowl than a melting pot.  We discussed in history last semester a number of attempts to turn America into a melting pot: everything from the role of eugenics to banning the teaching of foreign languages in school.  However, I think this is impossible–especially in a place like New York where there are new-comers every day.  One major reason, I think, is that even if you could somehow get everyone to speak and act the same way, our physical differences are too much.  There will always be people with blue eyes and people with brown.  There will always be the variety of skin tones, from albino white to dark as night black.  For a lot of people, unity isn’t just about actions–it’s about appearance.  Racism happens, which is counter-acted by cultural pride.  It’s the way it is, and the way it always will be.  I think that cultural pride has to do with what Ashley pointed out about second generation immigrants being more successful native-born counterparts.  When you’re America, you’re just…American.  But when you’re African-American, or Italian-American, or Pakistani-American, you’ve got to uphold both sides of the hyphen.

While cultural pride is good, too much isn’t a great thing.  It leads to ethnocentrism and  as Greg points out, ethnocentrism “provides a means for making moves guilt free”.  I also want to comment on what he said about non-white people tending to reserve American terms for whites, and using their cultural ties to identify themselves.  Even people who come from mixed cultures (example European father and Asian mother) like to point out both heritages when it comes to describing themselves.  In fact, the diversity is often a form of pride for them.

One last comment on Morrison’s obvious disdain of hyphens and her use of the term Africanist–I think to lose the hyphen is to lose half of one’s identity.  Half of one’s identity comes from one’s genes, and the other from one’s choices–and living in America counts as a choice.

All in all, I found the articles to be informative.  I won’t lie and say that they were always interesting, because they weren’t.  But I could relate to a lot of what they said, and I was able to appreciate the views they presented.

I definitely agree with Ashley, and several others who mentioned the idea of America as a “Salad Bowl” as opposed to a melting pot.  Whereas the earliest immigrants to this country may have assimilated, forming a “melting pot” of one unified, “American” culture, that is no longer the case.  People now develop a sense of being American while still retaining their native cultures. It is definitely true that assimilation is not an easy and quick thing, as Gerstle brought up in his article, and became more difficult with the coming of industrialization.  In fact many immigrants in the early 20th century had to form close-knit communities in which their own cultures flourished as a means of survival!

Greg brought up the point that New York is one of the most culturally diverse places in the world, and I would have to agree.  One of the ideas in Kasinitz’s article was that the face of immigration is changing because of this newfound diversity, especially in New York.  Now, immigrants are living among other immigrants, instead of being faced with a sharp divide from a predominant white culture.  Morrison said that the true “American” culture was only formed by the “presence of a racial other” to compare against…but the line is becoming less clear in certain parts of the country.

America is becoming more and more culturally diverse, and generally a place where people can openly express cultural individuality. I believe that this diversity and constant contact between numerous nationalities and beliefs is what is actually creating the unique “American” culture we are searching for.

When you’re asked, “Where are you from?” people aren’t looking for the answer “American” because it doesn’t mean much.  They want to know your roots and your background; so unless you’re a Native American, or your lineage can be traced back several generations in this country, chances are you aren’t strictly American.  So I agree with Ashley that being a “hyphenated American” is one way to hold onto one’s roots.  Since “‘American’ is not one of the ethnic groups recognized in the United States census,” (Walzer 5) claiming our roots is also how we identify ourselves to the general public and society.  For the immigrants who come to this country, they do so with hopes for a better life and to accomplish that they need to fit in (i.e. learn another language) but at the same time, they don’t want to let go of what they’ve lived with their whole lives, like their traditions and religion.  New York, being one of the most immigrant filled places in the states, demonstrates how far we’ve come from the early immigration days.  Rather than shed their culture, many ethnic groups have formed communities of similar backgrounds but also branch out.  Neither the salad bowl nor the melting pot idea is completely true, because while we all try to fit into American society, its the fact that we can be different (and are almost expected to be if you go by the lack of the ethnic group labeled “American” in the census) that lets us hold onto our cultural backgrounds.