In Foner’s writing of, “Ethnicity and Immigration”, she goes about talking about how America is a vast country of many cultures and ethnicities with whom they have travelled to here to avoid scrutiny from their prior “home”. Whether it was religion, political allegiance or disagreement, to avoid jail, or to become a “free” civilian, people from across the world have voluntarily and involuntarily found province in America. The question of “who are/what are Americans” come about in ethnic identity. Foner provides a quote from Singh, that “ ‘our grandparents were ethnic, not us’ “ and that we have to believe this to become “ ‘one homogenous “American” community’“ (Foner 50). What he is stating here is for the new people of America to become “American” have no true ethnicity other than American, their parents could be of descent of another country, but those cultural traditions and practices must be after thoughts or just heritage of who you were. This is where the concept of assimilation is asserted to the immigrants that now reside and call America home. The idea was to have people share a similar set of beliefs and values that would take the place of past political and economic standards from their previous homes. The reason for assimilation was to help in the “guaranteeing [of] democracy and equality for all in America” by means of “conformity and homogeneity” (Foner 50). This explains that the idea of assimilation was to satisfy all by means of forgetting ones past, heritage, and cultural background for the betterment of one’s new home, so there would be limited fighting or disagreement for migrants to have. But a question arises, “is assimilation a necessary process?” To answer that, it is yes and no. Yes because once one comes to America, they must conform to the laws and economic practices  and rights and etc. of what America strives for: democracy, capitalism, freedom, and liberty. This is emphasized through Foner’s reference to Crevecoeur’s America. The principle that “migrants would slough off the burdens of their pasts and create anew in the liberating conditions of American life” (Foner 52). This supports the claims and concept of assimilation as a very good and required concept that is necessary… but is it? For Native Americans, who are the actual Americans, the article testifies that they are not part of the “social development and nation-building” and therefore are not assimilated to becoming part of the “new America” (Foner 52). So this technically supports that one does not have to be assimilated into America to be American, but of course the Native Americans were pushed out of their homes and looked down upon as inferior people. So the question becomes more “is assimilation process necessary for gaining equality in becoming American”. Again the answer is yes and no. African Americans were assimilated into American culture, but it took them hundreds of years to gain the equality that we all deserve and strive to live by. It is known that America is a country that went through many trials and errors and failures to get to where it is today, and till this day, it is still not perfect. But assimilation has never been truly encouraged or forced upon any one immigrant, it more has been a way of becoming an American. Almost all ethnicities have been scrutinized and discriminated against (some more than others) (example: Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, African American, Middle Eastern, Cuban, etc.) and that’s where the arise of Chinatowns or German Villages or Little Italy’s came about. Where people of similar ethnicity resided in American states/cities found less judgement from people who were going through the same trials and assimilation but never were told “you have to assimilate into America and its values”, people just put it upon their selves and kept the important cultural and ethnical practices. The only cost of “ethnic identities” were the ones that people were willing to stop following for the betterment of their selves and to become a part of something greater than what they were previously apart of. That is why America is the “melting pot” of the world, I am not referring to the “melting pot” in Foner’s article, where people are renouncing their cultures, I am referring to the one we have grown up to know as Americans ourselves. The idea that we all live together with our differences, taking the best things from our grandparents, parents, or great grandparents (etc.), melting them together with what our neighbors believe are the best things from their lineage. Assimilation is not something that is necessary or not, rather something that happens and the best/important things from different cultures stay around and help keep cultural identities alive and apart of the melting pot of America.

The history of conflict between ethnic and religion has been raging on for centuries and it is still happening in today’s world. It is extremely difficult to ease the potential/ongoing conflicts involving these principles; they are almost always tremendously complex. In the U.S. in specific, the conflict between these principles are the most controversial nowaday following a short video clip of a group of white boys from a religious school “taunting and intimidating” an indigenous, old veteran man while he was on his march for the Natives. The video is about a minute, showing the boys laughing and being disrespectful towards an old man who was chanting a tribal song. This raised a wave of anger among Americans, who are disgusted by the video and believe the boy’s action should be punished. The conflict between the Native American and the U.S. goes way back during the colonialism years. The colonists forcefully took over lands of the Indians with the thought of lands are acquired by force. For centuries, history and culture of Native tribes were buried deep and was rarely mentioned. Conflicts build up over time and hatred was carried by many tribes, who lived with injustice for as long as one can remember. Even though there is negative peace, a term means the sides are no longer directly in war, the sides still have not reconcile or come to understand each other’s view. The sides being mentioned here is all the Native tribes and the Americans. To define conflict, it starts when two or more parties’ goals are incompatible and clearly the goals of both parties here were not compatible. The Native tribes want acceptance, respect, apologies, equal rights meanwhile many Americans want to “Americanise” these tribal groups since the groups pose threats because they are not the norm. To add more complex, there are elements called primary and secondary actors. Primary actors are the original people who are directly involved in conflict which were the colonists and the tribes at that time period. Secondary actors in this case are the Indian and colonists’ offsprings/families/friends. Over time this element grew, more people got involved in this conflict and made it impossible to untangle to the root of the problem. Reference back to the video, the boys and the old, veteran Indian man are the primary actors. Secondary actors are the people backing up the boys and the man. As this video is being discussed, more and more people pick side and now the conflict had escalated to the polarization level which means there are two dominantly sides in conflict. This just complicated the situation because solving problem between two people is already difficult, and now thousands are involved. To intensify the problem, the video might not reflect the whole truth of the situation, since it did not show the events before and after the situation to give some context. This showed that the video might not be the start point of conflict and therefore harder to determine who was in the wrong. History has always been about perspective and narrative, the same story would be completely different from two or more narrative. American Indian history showed that there are many layers of conflict and overtime it complexioned and is extremely difficult to untangle and unless both sides are willing to come to an understanding of each other’s view/goals, nothing would be solved. So this specific example of American Indian would not help with other potential/ongoing ethnic and religious conflict in today’s world, each conflict has its own layers and principles, one cannot simply classify conflicts to be the same. The takeaway from the example of U.S. and American Indian is that these types of conflict cannot be solved in a short amount of time nor it is easy to resolve.

When I first read the piece, I was really confused by the poem and I couldn’t get the reference Du Bois made there; and after I completed the reading, I still did not understand the importance of the poem. It was an odd way to start an essay, with no leading details into the poem and no interpretation nor explanation after the poem. Nonetheless, after reading it, I felt empower about his will to fight for the acceptance that was denied towards his ethnic group. He stated that he would not deny his identity but also would not want to “Africanize” America. His only wish was not get discriminated against because of who he is and I think that’s most crucial start point for having equal rights for everyone. The struggle of being different was highlighted by Du Bois in this essay as he said, “Years have passed away since then,—ten, twenty, forty; forty years of national life, forty years of renewal and development, and yet the swarthy spectre sits in its accustomed seat at the Nation’s feast”. This can be interpreted as Du Bois saying that years from the Emancipation, where ideologically “freed” the slaves and make them equal to others, the African American community was still not seen as equal to the society. They were still seen as lower class that would not get far because all of the disadvantages and prejudice against them. Even though the Emancipation freed African Americans, they were still being shut out from the rest of the society and there is no equality, until there is acceptance. But instead of staying in the disadvantaged spot that had already been made for him, he stood up and strive for the better spots through education and that alone is a very powerful and influential action. He refused to let others define him.

One phrase in the first paragraph really stood out and touched me, it was “How does it feel to be a problem?”. A simple yet powerful sentence; it carries the pain of being the blame of ethnic group(s). I resonant with his story a lot since I’m also a person of color, there were many cases throughout my life that I felt not accepted, that I was different. I moved to the U.S. when I was in 7th grade with limited English and that’s already a disadvantage for me. To be able to get to the same level as my classmates, I have to work twice, triple as hard. And with nowadays society, no one listens to other people’s stories anymore but they judged a person by the way he/she dresses, by the language that he/she speaks and by his/her skin color. It is a shame to see how advance and modern life is, but how people’s mind regress. It comes as a surprise how poorly the people of color are treated in the land of “opportunities” “liberty” and “freedom”.

Before I read this piece, from my opinion is a lot of young African Americans would not lift the veil that’s preventing them to be to their fullest potential but after reading Du Bois’s passion for striving to get better, it changed my mind. Maybe I did not encountered many that acted this way but they are there, struggling and doing their best to get the recognition they deserve.

This essay was not necessary easy to comprehend but it also was not too difficult. It gave me a new perspective about this problem within the society that still exist in today’s world.

The question of whether or not assimilation is a necessary process is a rather complex one. On one hand, I highly value the customs and traditions of not only my people, but any and all immigrants wanting to find a new home in a foreign land; on the other hand, I know the hardships associated with learning how to function and succeed in a society so drastically different from your own. An immigrant myself, I’ve watched my parents give up some aspects of their identity in order to better adjust to life here in the States. As a result, I’ve been able to identify with some parts of our cultural heritage (cuisine and music) but have been deprived or completely lost others (cultural wear and language) because they weren’t pertinent to my survival in this new country. This saddens me, not only because I feel as if I am missing crucial elements of my identity, but also because I know it’ll be harder for my children to relate to these aforementioned cultural indicators as well. But were those loses necessary? Is this a practice I should carry on, or a precedent in need of reform?

In their reading, Ethnicity and Immigration, Neil Campbell and Alasdair Kean explore the forced assimilation and resistance of Native Americans into this newfound Euro-centric “American” culture, and how their exclusion from this country’s makeup has had lasting effects that persist to this day. One takeaway that I found really interesting was their commentary on a quote given by Oscar Handlin, a social historian. He states that, “Once I thought to write a history of immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.” This was a comment I agreed with at first and actually found rather inspiring. All Americans are foreigners, immigrants from all over the world who came to this land hoping to find new opportunities and freedom. To me this wasn’t simply an opinion, but a fundamental truth. However, I quickly rescinded my thoughts as I continued to read the passage. I was quite dumbfounded when the authors replied to this quote by stating that, unsurprisingly, Native Americans were excluded from Handlin’s equation. They assert, “They exist only, it would seem, as Others to be conquered, destroyed and pitied by the immigrants that Handlin viewed as true Americans.”

The authors continue to discuss how the Natives historically resisted any American attempts at assimilation, which they viewed as an attack on their ideals and beliefs. They pull a quote from Melvin Thorn, President of the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC) who stated, “We do not want to be pushed into Mainstream American life… Any real help for Indian people must take cultural values into consideration.” The duality of being a marginalized group in America became all the more apparent. The Native Americans, who are historically tied to this land, must feel more of a need to maintain their cultural heritage as opposed to other minority groups. They were once the sole rulers of this continent, after all, why should they abandon their historic ideals in order to appease foreign invaders? My family, on the other hand, has little to no original connection to America, so we might feel more pressure to assimilate into the mainstream culture. We also don’t hold the risk of those sacred traditions vanishing forever, unlike the Native Americans, whose numbers have dwindled dramatically since the founding of this nation. I will always be able to travel back to Ghana and be amongst my people; the American Indians, on the other hand, don’t really share that same luxury. This is a revelation that further complicates the question of whether or not assimilation is a necessary process. Nonetheless, it should also prompt continued dialogue on the subject matter amongst all peoples of the American continent.

The question as to whether or not an American identity exists, and if so by what common set of values and cultural practices is it defined? Since the establishment of the British colonies, predating the foundation of our nation by several decades, this particular question has intrigued the people who inhabit the United States for centuries. Furthermore, the issue of determining what binds a people together, what defines a culture and a nation must be resolved in order for society to progress and peace to be ensured. The idea of assimilation and Americanization was first proposed as a means by which to define the American identity, as well as to propose how other cultures may be integrated into this newly established framework. However, this definition is fallacious in nature, as it is predicated on the assumption that there is only one “True” American identity, and that a set of common, intrinsically American values could be concretely defined in an objective manner. The fact of the matter is that the values which today are viewed as American are abstract, yet profound in nature: the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The reasoning behind defining these mores as metaphysical concepts is due to the same issue that those such as Crevecoeur fail to address: The original concept of the homogeneous American is defined by wealthy, intellectual, white European men in positions of power. This infallibly sets precedents for the disenfranchisement and marginalization of minority groups that fall outside of what the ruling class considers and interprets as American. It is this quagmire that grossly overshadows any possibility of positive results stemming from cultural assimilation and efforts to Americanize preexisting cultures. The metaphorical melting pot is not a homogeneous mixture by nature, but rather a conglomeration of identities that retain their individual characteristics while adopting and integrating each other’s traditions and practices in a natural process, an ebb and flow of cultural interchanges rather than a forced and immediate immolation of previous ethnic and cultural identities. Foner references cultural “ghost values; the ‘shreds and echoes’ of the past (Singh et. al). As traditions are gradually lost to time and fall out of practice, those of younger generations may tend to identify less with the cultural identities of their ancestors. Yet it is imperative that they have agency over their own identities, and that we as a nation do not force them to abandon or discourage them from exploring the nature of their ethnic heritage. Not only is this important on ethical grounds, but as our country developed and matured, the narrative of our nation has become not one of quixotic European fidelity nor did we choose to assimilate ourselves into the native cultures. America has come to be defined by the lack of one True identity, and it is the tension and ambivalence that arises from this lack of a cultural fulcrum that has become the fulcrum itself: As Hamlet once said, “the play’s the thing;” our lack of identity has become a staple of American culture. Yet the lack of identity is not absolute, nor is it equally separated from American Indian culture as it is from European society. As a nation founded by British aristocrats, it is perhaps no surprise that we tend to idealize more characteristically “white” identities and resist the incorporation of ideologies that challenge the narrative of Western (European) supremacy. This separation is clearly visible in the different attitudes displayed towards stoicism in literature and cinema: While American Indians are generally portrayed as stoic, mystical figures, such is the case in many Western films and even acclaimed novels such as Kinsey’s “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, British, and more specifically Englishmen are predominately characterized as articulate and sophisticated. Foner addresses this segregation, and praises the work of American Indian literary figures such as Sherman Alexie, who utilize rhetorical schema and satirization to deconstruct these inaccurate stereotypes that permeate American culture to this day. Furthermore, Foner goes on to postulate that “Although always in an uneasy and ambivalent position, their [American Indians’] ethnic identity is not invisible, and their culture and history continue to develop and inform each generation.” It is through the increased representation of the truly complex and diverse nature of nontraditional cultures that we as a country will truly begin to understand the intricacies of social identities and replace the distilled and propagandistic two-dimensional stereotypes of marginalized groups with a more fluid and kinetic understanding of human beings.

This was a very interesting read to me, as I often feel that the presence of Native Americans and Native American culture in the US today is overlooked. In my experience, I can clearly recall only really learning about historic Native Americans in one light: that they were earthy, wild, uncivilized, and then we misplaced them. I remember learning about bits and pieces of their culture growing up, but I feel like every discussion on them basically ended with “The Trail of Tears” and their displacement. I have since then learned to critique just about everything I learned in the early years of my public schooling, especially the way that I view people of different ethnicities and groups different than mine.

From this text I was easily able to draw a parallel between the way Americans initially viewed/treated Native Americans and the way that Americans initially viewed/treated black people. The article states how white americans wrote of Native Americans as “racially inferior, savage, childlike, and in need of readjustment.” One could argue that those exact words have been used to describe people in Africa countless amounts of times in the past, and even in the present. There seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout the history of America of white people claiming to “save” large groups of ethnic people, while doing nothing but dehumanizing them and destroying their culture. Americans used the same excuse that these groups of people need “readjustment” in order to justify the inhumane ways we have historically treated them. All of that being said, I must say that I have been exposed to far more truths about Africans than I have about Native Americans and the way white people have tried to erase them.

I was inspired by the way that the Native American voices throughout this text spoke about stories and story-telling. It really made me think about the way that the story of Native Americans experience in America has been either skewed or totally erased. Story-telling is the most true and effective way for these people to preserve their history and their culture, as today’s education system and society often paint the image all wrong. To be quite honest, I do not have a good idea of what Native American culture is like in modern day. I barely even know what a reservation is or how reservations function in Native American communities. I would like to look into if/how/to what extent Native Americans have assimilated over time in order to be able to exist comfortably in American society. I think that even if American claims to be multicultural, there is still forced assimilation within ethnic groups of people to adjust to white American culture. One idea that struck me was that Native Americans “[traditionally] vanish at the end of Hollywood movies, ‘because their absence is better understood than their presence.’” I feel that this is sadly true in a way. American history typically writes off the continued existence of Native Americans as if they were a group that only existed in the past.

It’s always interesting reading about topics that I barely knew about before coming to the United States. Obviously ethnicity and immigration is a worldwide topic, but nothing compares to the United State’s history.

Indians and Cowboys were one of my favorite toy games when I was young. I have to admit that bow and arrows were much more fascinating to me than the strength of pistols. For lack of better words, I have always been more Indian than Cowboy in my soul. That being said, I thought hard about the History of America and “Americaness”, as defined by the author himself, throughout my college career. It is stupid not to recognize that where and what we are living right now is due to the war that saw the Native American lose lands and power over the past; and even though we are all ashamed of it today, it was a necessary act at the time. Of course I hate war and the law of the strongest, but our values, liberty, and ideals of freedom come from war. 

I strongly believe that today’s world is constructed in a way that should’t bring us to act violently in order to establish those ideals. Leading by example is nowadays the best way to achieve that sort of environment. Indeed we can see how America built a multicultural society upon itself that is intended to share common values through immigration. As the author mentions in the first part of the text, there is now a “New American national identity, with specific shared beliefs and values”. I insist on this quote because I truly believe that the world would be a much worse place without what the United States have accomplished throughout the years. Immigration is meant to be positive, and the mix of different ethnicities for a nation is something that should make every citizen proud of it. Again, with that being said, we must recognized that not all human beings are willing to give up their deeply rooted customs and beliefs just to be part of a larger and fair project. This is when the government has the responsibility to step in. In order to make immigration a resource it has to be clear that whoever wants to be a part of the American society has to share, believe, and adapt to the ideals of freedom, equality and liberty that have made the U.S. not only the most powerful economy in the world, but also the best place to express yourself in the community.

Returning to the subject of Native Americans, I wanted to analyze another part of the text which I found very interesting. “Once I thought to write a history of immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history” wrote Oscar Handlin in the Uprooted. As the text reminds us, what he clearly excludes from his American history view is the importance of Native Americans. I support the idea that Indians as any other ethnicity in the US must be respected and valued. Native Americans are now fully part of the American society and share the same ideals of this beloved country. Seeing the history of United States as a mere immigration process, excluding the transition of the Native Americans in our society is not only disrespectful, but also unacceptable and outrageous. Native Americans are now and forever the oldest ethnicity that populate the country and their presence must be recognized as one of the most valuable resource of this country, which is based on differences and peaceful cohabitation.

I would like to focus this journal entry on the first question posed by the given prompt. I do believe that assimilation is a necessary process when entering a new community, town, or even nation. Assimilation is not the right word, or maybe a different definition should be assigned to it in the sense that i think it should be done. Acclimation might be a better word. It is my belief that any individual, whether it be an immigrant coming to a new land or a third grade student, should first acclimate themselves with their surroundings, their peers, and the culture that surrounds them. This is not to say that the individual should drop his or her ethnic background and forget about where they came from, but instead they should focus more on where they are now and enjoy the freedom they have sought for and achieved. This is the principle that America was built on. As Foner says when paraphrasing Crevecoeur, “…America was the place where migrants would slough off the burdens of their inherited pasts and create themselves anew in the liberating conditions of American life.” I don’t believe that an immigrant should be made to immediately drop their culture or change their entire way of life, but there is now a norm or “condition” in the United States that is different from the places where many immigrants choose to leave. This norm is the American culture that has been adapting and changing throughout its existence and is unlike any other in the world. However accepting and plural it may be, the culture still requires some acclimation. This acclimation is the “condition.” The American citizenship does not require an immigrant to change their name, religion, or ideals and beliefs, but it does require one to accept the fact that they are now an American above all else. This is why the certain terms we use to distinguish ourselves from others makes no sense to me. I consider myself to be an American. I have Irish, English, Welsh, German, and Swedish ancestry but i don’t see any reason to put those denominations in front of my Americanism only separated by a hyphen. I understand that i cannot forget where i come from and neither should a person of African, Egyptian, Chinese, or Australian decent. We must also not forget where we are now. Acclimating to a new life in America should mean wanting to be an American just like in any other country around the world. The stance that Foner takes on the way the United States chose to assimilate Native Americans is one which i disagree with. From its inception until the early 20th century, the United States of America was an imperialist republic just like much of its predecessors in the world. A vast change in that regard has swept over western culture although some nations still hold onto an imperialist mindset. Since the beginning of civilization, one has always triumphed or conquered the other. The Romans did it with unequivocal success as did the Babylonians, Persians, and even the British. When coming to America it was different in only one way. By the time the American Identity had begun to take shape, the Native American still existed. Contrary to much of history in which tribes and cultures of people were wiped out by invaders and conquerors, the United States, beginning with its early English settlers, did not strive to wipe out the indigenous people. It is my belief nonetheless that over time, those more adapted to the changing world and those who possessed an advantage thrived. The Native Americans resisted their invaders as anyone would but over time they became outnumbered. We didn’t exterminate them however. Foner seems to agree with the concept that Americans “equated the Native American with the madman or the criminal and imagined the reservation as a kind of asylum or prison.” I don’t believe this was the plan behind the reservation at all. It was my belief that the reservation was a way to honor and keep parts of land in the possession of Native American peoples. That being said, i didn’t agree with much in this reading, but i do believe that people coming to America should acclimate themselves and learn to understand the culture that now exists here. It is the choice that many seem to take to continue their way of life which was so detrimental to their well-being in the past and to not acclimate themselves to a new idea or culture that is American that drives so many of the ethnic problems seen today.

During my reading of “Ethnicity and Assimilation,” I considered the effect that assimilation has had on the history of the United States, and on the modern and historical perception of what it means to be an American. The idea of assimilation is an old one for the United States. Crevecoeur, for example, wrote that America was where you could shed your old identity and be “melted into a new race of men.” This policy of assimilation was seen as necessary for the building of a homogeneous nation, but it was carried out in morally reprehensible ways. Native Americans, with whom this reading was focused, were major victims of forced assimilation.

Since before the founding of the nation, Native Americans were viewed as undeveloped and uncultured savages by European colonists, and they were seen as incapable of adapting to western society. This view of Native Americans persisted throughout the history of the United States. This point is reinforced in “Ethnicity and Assimilation” when it is posited that “White Americans in positions of cultural power defined Native Americans racially inferior, savage, childlike, and in need of radical readjustment to the ‘better’ life of the dominant culture.” This view was also reflected in the actions and policies of the United States government.

One institution that enforced this assimilation was the Carlisle School. It was a school that was created to “civilize” and westernize Native Americans. The reading maintains that racism and the drive to assimilate Native Americans “was the underlying intention of the reservation system and the establishment of Indian schools, like the Carlisle School started in 1879 with a philosophy of ‘Kill the Indian and save the man.’” I was curious about the Carlisle School, so I continued to look at sources relating to it. I found the image posted with this journal very interesting and relevant. It depicts a Native American before and after being assimilated by the Carlisle School. I personally found this image to be a sad glimpse into the lives of the victims of forced assimilation. This Native American was told that their way of life was incorrect and savage, and forcefully stripped of their identity to satisfy the dominant American culture.

This reading was a very interesting look into the history of the assimilation of Native Americans, and has certainly influenced my opinions on assimilation. The era of forced assimilation is over in the United States, but that does not mean that members of the majority culture do not have advantages over members of minority cultures. For example, I remember in our class discussion it was mentioned that people with more “traditionally American” or Anglo-Saxon names were more likely to be considered for a job than someone with a name from a less common cultural background. In cases such as these, assimilation into the dominant culture can make life easier. It seems that as time passes, however, each generation becomes more accepting than the last, so hopefully at some point in the future all cultures and backgrounds will be weighted equally, without bias.

David Mack 

America has been a place that immigrants have wanted to call home since the Declaration of Independence. When people come here, they are forced to become a member of our society and assimilate to all aspects of American life. I personally believe don’t believe that assimilation is a necessary process to occur when a group of people moves to a new country. I believe that keeping your identity and culture is extremely important to who you are and ensuring that the legacy of your ancestors carries on in your life and hopefully your children.  

“Nathan Zuckerman, on a visit to Israel finds himself defending his identity as a Jew against the claims of an ageing Zionist who insists that there is no country for a Jew but Israel.” This point resonates with me as a Jewish-American who has traveled to Israel. Over the past three generation of my family we have lost many of our ties to Israel and the Jewish religion. When traveling to Israel I feel like your typical American on a tour and not a Jew who feels at home. My family has roots in Israel but as a result of the Holocaust many of my ancestors were killed or fled to foreign countries and many left their religion behind to ensure their families safety. We are still Jews, but time and time again I ask, am I really Jewish? Do I really embody everything that my ancestors believed in? Would they see me as a Jew or an American who forgot his history? 

My family much like many others has become assimilated and lost our religion, language, and culture. My ancestors would never have eaten a bacon cheeseburger let alone a cheeseburger, yet with these foods being so readily available I have failed to keep kosher as my grandparents once did. In a similar fashion to others who have lost their history as a people, I don’t feel that I have a special space in society. I am a part of America, but there really isn’t anything that makes me stand out or feel a connection to my roots as a Jew and an American. 

In the complete flip side, the Native Americans, a people who were already here, were subjected to the same forces of assimilation, and I would say these forces were even stronger than my ancestors experienced. The colonists “in positions of power defined Native Americans as a racially inferior, savage, childlike, and in need of readjustment to the ‘better’ life of the dominant culture.” In this case Native Americans had a new culture forced upon them, simply because they didn’t match the ideal American or believe in the same things as the majority of the people moving to the new world. The Native Americans were treated with utter disrespect and hatred, simply because they didn’t fit in. 

I don’t think assimilation is necessary in any society as these two examples show. I think America is the great country that it is because of all the different people it attracts. I don’t believe any person should ever be forced to do or believe something they don’t agree with. The differences we all have is what makes us who we are and defines us as people. If we were all the same this country/world would be so boring and I don’t think assimilation has any place in it.