FACES AND PLACES: Assimilation, American style (03/29/98)

FACES AND PLACES

by Myron B. Kuropas

Assimilation, American style

If there is one word that has frightened hundreds of Ukrainian American activists, parents, sons, daughters and assorted others, it is "assimilation."

Among Ukrainian "patriots" in this country, if one wanted to put someone down one could just suggest that person was succumbing to assimilation, i.e., becoming more American than Ukrainian, an act of treason in some circles.

Over the years our newspapers have been filled with article upon article alerting us to the "dangers of assimilation." Our community was at risk, went the argument, because of "rising assimilation." We were losing our youth, our identity, our sense of self. I know because I participated in that debate.

Now comes Peter D. Salins, author of "Assimilation, American Style," telling us to relax; assimilation isn't as bad as we thought. Assimilation doesn't mean the disappearance of ethnic consciousness. "Assimilation, American style," he writes in his book, "set out a simple contract between the existing settlers and all newcomers. Immigrants would be welcome as full members of the American family if they agreed to abide by three simple precepts: First, they had to accept English as the national language. Second, they were expected to take pride in their American identity and believe in America's liberal and democratic and egalitarian principles. Third, they were expected to abide by what is commonly referred to as the Protestant ethic (to be self-reliant, hardworking and morally upright)."

It was a contract that thousands of Ukrainian immigrants gladly accepted, albeit informally. They worked hard, educated their children, expected them to become proficient in English (even if many immigrants barely spoke the language) and became proud American citizens without losing their Ukrainian roots and aspirations. America's "unique approach to assimilation unequivocally lets Americans identify with the cultures of their ancestral homelands to whatever degree they please," writes Dr. Salins.

Today, argues Dr. Salins, the contract is being rendered null and void by a breed of tribalists seeking to establish an America predicated on ethnic federalism.

Like most current cultural aberrations, tribalism began in the narcissistic and iconoclastic 1960s and reached its zenith during the 1970s and 1980s with the emergence of a brand of militant multiculturalism that rejects the idea of a shared national identity. Today, a new contract is being forged, based on the following terms: 1) English is a linguistic option; 2) taking pride in being American is not possible because the "American Idea" is a hypocritical myth; 3) the Protestant ethic of hard work and ambition is dead because it "blames the victim" (read "the minorities") for any and all failure; 4) it no longer matters whether immigrants become U.S. citizens; 5) public schools should be vehicles of ethnic conscious-raising rather than crucibles of Americanization.

The idea of a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) amalgamating culture is a myth, according to Dr. Salins, for five reasons: although America's British roots cannot be denied, American culture has developed independently of Britain for centuries; a WASP hegemony just doesn't exist; those British influences that have survived in the United States are relatively benign; most Americans prefer a unified Anglo-American culture to the kind ethnic federalism being pushed by minorities; for most Americans, the Anglo uniculture is more authentic than their ethnic culture, however much they appreciate it. "Contrary to conventional wisdom," writes Dr. Salins, "the United States has long since ceased to be a WASP society." Today, "the manifestation of ethnic pride, the practice of ethnic customs, and even the speaking of foreign languages are neither feared nor discouraged by the larger society."

The nativist tradition in American history, which produced everything from The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the exclusionary Immigration Act of 1924, resulted in some major blunders, aberrations that halted progress, believes Dr. Salins. The 1924 act gave each European nationality a quota proportional to its share of the American population in 1890; this was especially pernicious for Ukrainians who weren't even recognized as a separate nationality in 1890.

"Immigrants at all times have been good for America," writes Dr. Salins, "and America has been good to them." When immigration is high, America prospers. It is a fact that cities with a high percentage of immigrants such as San Francisco, New York, San Jose and El Paso, have significantly lower unemployment, lower welfare rates, and more rapid employment growth than cities with low immigration such as Detroit, St. Louis and Cleveland.

Illegal immigration hurts everyone, according to Dr. Salins because it often results in high concentrations of a single ethnic group in one area which usually leads to local resentment. Some commentators have argued that illegal immigrants are beneficial because they work at jobs which others refuse. Even if that's true - notwithstanding the fact that many illegals are ruthlessly exploited - the problem of uncontrolled borders remains. It's clear that maintaining national sovereignty requires monitoring those who are allowed in. If immigration laws are not enforced, Dr. Salins points out, "disrespect is being communicated to the very people, [legal] immigrants, whom we should be most concerned about being socialized properly into American society."

How true. It is difficult to explain to people from Ukraine, for example, that the United States is a nation of laws when they themselves or others they know paid $3,000 to $5,000 dollars for an American visa.

What distinguishes the United States from almost every other nation in the world is that it is a civic rather than an ethnic nation. Ethnic nations attempt to unify their people on the basis of ethnicity. Since most nations are ethnically heterogeneous, various concessions to groups are made in order to mollify them. The divisive notion of "group rights" is a result of this type of ethnic federalism.

Civic nations, on the other hand, vest rights only in individuals and attempt to avoid distinctions based on ethnicity or other kinds of group membership.

If assimilation was never the threat we thought it was, and if maintaining one's ethnocultural identity is more a matter of choice than anything else, then we've been asking the wrong questions for the past three decades. What we should have been asking is why so many of our young people chose not to be involved.

Myron Kuropas' e-mail address is: mbkuropas@compuserve.com