Many scholars of immigration history, including historians, have explored the ways in which ethnicity is closely related to immigration and acculturation. Through metaphors, such as the “Melting Pot,” scholars have considered the power and importance of ethnicity and ethnicity. In addition, we discussed the metaphor itself ‘melting-pot’, comparing the original concept with historical ones. actually Considering these things, it is partially possible to combine the opinions of several authors in a clearer picture.
Several authors discuss the difficulty of defining ethnicity. Michael Novak explains that “ethnicity is not a simple phenomenon, it is not easy to define terms that apply to everyone in the same way”. Philip Gleason despairs that the words ‘drinking,’ pluralism, and ‘ethnicity’ are used almost interchangeably, as if they have the same meaning univocal, which all understood, and to which all attached the same affirmation or negation. (Gleason, Talking about Diversity, p. 41) It is therefore important that ethnicity be defined, if not universally, by all the authors who use the voice evidently.
Most authors write about ethnicity, and indeed help readers by defining their use of the term. For example, Werner Sollors asserts that ethnicity is “not a thing, but a process”, noting also that “essential cultural assumptions” should never be taken for granted by the reader. (Sollors, p. xv) William Paul Adams is more clear in the definition of the term, explaining that “in the American context it is a useful label such as “ethnic”… those qualities of a person, group, or state constitution that are clearly drawn from and outside of common experience or the memory of immigration cannot exist “(Adams, Ethnic Leader,” p. 152) This is further explained by William Petersen, who emphasized “[t]he notation of ethnic. “group” is that its members know, at least secretly, the common interests. (Petersen, p. 2)
Several authors question why ethnicity is an important aspect of immigration studies. Gleason approaches this question by exploring the national character of Americans. He noted that “the universalistic ideological character of the American nation meant that it was open to anyone who wanted to become an American.” Thus, all immigrants were more likely to merge with the original ethnicity, through a process that came to be widely known as the melting pot.
One of the most common aspects in writing about ethnicity is the iconography of the melting pot. This phrase, “a symbol of the process by which immigrants are absorbed into American society and somehow transformed into Americans,” was introduced into widespread use in 1908 by a play called The Melting-pot, written by Israel Zangwill. (Gleason, Speaking of Diversity, p. 5.) The story, with Jewish immigrants descending on the United, deals with the question of assimilation in relation to one group of immigrants. The concept of the United-states-history”>United States as a melting pot – a place where the Old World nation emerged and the various elements. fuse into a new nation—operates in the play as a general framework within which the drama of the Jews is set.” (Gleason, Speaking of Diversity, p. 8) Gleason notes that “the Melting-Pot was the author of the all-purpose assimilation doctrine, along with the idea that “immigrants actively want their assimilation” ( Gleason, Speaking of Diversity, pp. 9-10) Additionally, the end product of the melting pot will be the “true American”, a mixture of the best of each ethnic group Diversity, p ) Since many later uses and interpretations of the melting pot idea have not persisted to every aspect of the story’s advocates, it is important to consider both the original concept as such and each interpretation by the same author.
The first authors have much to say on the subject of the melting pot. Gleson emphasizes that “[t]he very fact that the melting pot symbol has been used so many times and in so many ways does not mean that it has achieved universal acceptance as the most satisfactory symbol for the process of racial control and commerce in America.” Gleason, Speaking of Diversity, p. 13) Gleason notes, for example, that the melting pot is used to describe the bad side of a social phenomenon, or against plurality. This is somehow better than using two words at once, but it is still a bit inaccurate and inappropriate for ethnographers. Other authors, such as Petersen, suggest that “[t]he melting pot was probably an accurate metaphor for the unfulfilled aspiration of the first generation to completely disappear, to be confused into an indiscernible resemblance to the ‘real’ Americans. (Petersen, p. 13) Others, however, find the melting pot, in many ways , the reality – white Americans today have a difficult time accurately defining their ethnicity, and “what the melting pot has put, statisticians can no longer. to ennode.’ (Adams, The German-Americans, p. 2) While this is partly from the governments’ assumption that after two generations in United States, ethnic groups are fully absorbed, (Archdeacon, p. xv) this very phenomenon is also evidenced by the mixing of several ethnicities and the resulting damage or consequence. distinctly suppressed ethnic characteristics.
However, the assimilation of ethnic groups does not affect only the assimilated masses. It also affects assimilators, or people and culture in the United States. Gleson sees this as “the most fundamental ambiguity in the melting pot symbol.” (Gleason, Talking about Diversity, p. 15) It is ambiguous because it only suggests the idea of boiling poop inside the pot, not the pot itself. Other authors have seen this as a key aspect of ethnicity and even the melting pot. Novak explains that “there is a great deal of energy in the process of acquiring this rich and liberating culture. America itself has changed due to the impact of mass immigration.” Although there are many obvious problems in using the melting pot as a symbol of the fate of ethnicity in the United States, most authors, including some of the strongest critics took it as “the best symbol that has been devised for ethnic interaction in America.” (Gleason, Talking about Diversity, p. 24) Other metaphors may come and go, but the much-discussed sauce pot metaphor remains in place, for the time being. However, it is also important to turn away from the ideal use of the melting pot in historical studies and to look at historical reality. Kathleen Neils Conzen did just that in her examination of German-American ethnicity.
Conzen notes at the outset that “[i]t has often been argued that German-Americans have never constituted a ‘real’ ethnic group in America, divided by dialect, region of origin, religion, class, time of emigration, and place of American residence.” (Conzen, “German-Americans,” p. 131) However, if the Germans did not commit to unity, they acted quickly to achieve a sense of community. the celebration of ethnicity to preserve the community, which they “achieved real success.” (Conzen, “Ethnicity”, pp. 62, 75) The creation of German ethnicity by immigrants was somewhat a reaction “to the assimilation norm proposed to them by American society. But theirs was more than a passive, reactive role.” (Conzen, “German-Americans,” p. 133) Germans imagined their ethnicity as “a vehicle through which they attempted to change the contours of American life.” (Conzen, “Ethnicity,” p. . 76) By the end of the Civil War, when the Germans organized themselves into a group, they found it more difficult to accept death. to extend to them an ethnic, albeit Phoenician, melting pot.” (Conzen, “German-Americans,” p. 140) Thus the German-Americans fully intended to preserve their culture and were able to do so. The problem arose that American society was “prepared to “receiving” much of the ethnic German culture that they wanted to keep as Germans. (Conzen, “German-Americans,” p. 145) German-American culture simply became part of American culture, assimilated while doctors tried to resist assimilation.
It is difficult to write a normative definition of ethnicity. It seems likely that every author who wrote about the subject defined it differently, choosing the best definition for his individual interest. Similarly, it is difficult to separate historical teaching and historical activity in dealing with the metaphorical ‘melting pot’. The authors broadly posit that the melting pot is a useful metaphor for the process that occurs, despite some evidence to the contrary, most notably in the case of German immigrants. Since this examination of the themes of ethnicity from the record can introduce more questions than it answers, it helped me to know how these terms are loaded and the care to be taken in using them correctly.
Works Cited:
Adams, William Paul. “Ethnic leadership and German-Americans.” In America and the Germans: An Evaluation of the History of Three Annals. Vol. 1, Immigration, Languages, Ethnicity, eds. Francis Trommler and Joseph McVeigh, 148-159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Adams, William Paul. German-Americans: The Ethnic Experience. Indianapolis: Max-Kade German-American Center, Indiana University, Purdue University at Indianapolis, 1993.
Archdeacon, Thomas J. American: An Ethnic History. New York: The Free Press, 1983.
Conzen, Kathleen Neils. “Ethnicity as Festive Culture: German America in the 29th-Century Parade.” In Inventing Ethnicity, ed. Werner Sollors, 44-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Conzen, Kathleen Neils. “German-Americans and the Invention of Ethnicity.” In America and the Germans: An Evaluation of the History of Three Annals. Vol. 1, Immigration, Languages, Ethnicity, eds. Francis Trommler and Joseph McVeigh, 131-147. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.
Gleason, Philip. “American Identity and Americanization.” In Concepts of Ethnicity, ed. Stephen Thernstrom, 57-143. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1980.
Gleason, Philip. Talking About Diversity: Language and Ethnicity in Twentieth-Century America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Novak, Michael. “Pluralism in Humanistic Perspective.” In Concepts of Ethnicity, ed. Stephen Thernstrom, 27-56. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1980.
Peterson, William. “Concepts of ethnicity.” In Concepts of Ethnicity, ed. Stephen Thernstrom, 1-26. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1980.
Sollors, Werner. “Introduction: The Discovery of Ethnicity.” In Inventing Ethnicity, ed. Werner Sollors, ix-xx Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
