The existence of assimilation and pluralism among immigrant communities and whether or not these two phenomena coexisted in American society is a prevalent topic in this week’s readings. Specifically, authors Stephen Steinberg and Gary Gerstle examine the concept of “Americanization,” the extent to which immigrants conformed to American culture. Each author provides a unique yet compelling perspective on whether Americanization was characterized predominately by assimilation, or did pluralism play a significant role in the immigrants’ adaptation to American society. Steinberg claims that immigrants enter the “melting pot” in which they are melded into true “Americans.” Many of these immigrants entered the United States as means of escaping religious or other forms of persecution. Therefore, the melting pot was associated with freedom for these new American citizens. However, the author argues that this melting pot applied exclusively to white Europeans. Steinberg notes that this melting pot did not apply to blacks, and as a result they developed their own culture. I think it’s fascinating that Steinberg portrays the assimilation of the white Europeans in a positive light, casting a shadow upon African American exclusion from the melting pot. Granted, the blacks faced severe persecution and prejudice in the United States, but just the mere fact that Steinberg depicts Americanization as something the blacks were missing out on suggests that assimilation overshadowed pluralism in twentieth century.
In “Liberty, Coercion, and the Making of Americans,” author Gary Gerstle delineates an interesting and different assessment of Americanization. According to Gerstle, immigrants to the United States did not necessarily gravitate towards assimilation and its emancipating qualities like Steinberg insinuates. Instead, Gerstle notes the nefarious features of Americanization in the early twentieth century and the ways it mitigated pluralism amongst American immigrants. For example, the article references German Americans who had no choice but to relinquish their German identity after anti-war propaganda disparaged Germany and its citizens. Rather than providing the freedom these people were seeking upon their arrival to the United States, Americanization became a process in which immigrants were coerced into assimilation. Furthermore, by assimilating to American culture and abandoning their backgrounds, immigrants would face constraints. For example, in the mid 20th century, women who had economic freedom in their countries of origin would come to America and be expected to accept the role of house-maker if they wished to assimilate. Therefore, Gerstle sheds light upon sources that believed that many of these immigrants assimilated only to engage in their own cultural practices. This “voluntary pluralism” meant that immigrants were not coming here to become Americans and fully buy into the American ideals. Instead, many of the foreigners were becoming American to obtain certain freedoms that were illegal or unaccepted in their countries of origin.
In modern times, I think that American immigrants and their descendants have learned to immerse themselves in both American patriotism as well as cultural traditions. Reading these articles led me to ponder the actions of American immigrants who are fans of the Summer Olympics. The Olympics embody nationalism, and at the outset it is basically required to pick a nation to support. American citizens adamantly support our athletes, but they do it within the boundaries of their culture. For example, Orthodox Jews will not watch the Olympics on Sabbath, while Catholics won’t watch on Sunday mornings. Some hyphenated Americans may even choose to support a certain athlete from their homeland. Hence, the Olympics prove that assimilation and cultural pluralism can coexist and thrive in the immigrant communities in the United States.
