Macielle Donohue
April 14, 2009
Paper 2
In the books “The Uprooted” by Oscar Handlin and “The Transplanted” by John
Bodnar, there are many topics regarding immigration. Two specific topics that both
authors touch on are religion and the migration of immigrants. Both authors view religion
and the migration of immigrants very differently. While both authors make strong points,
I find that Handlin makes the best argument.
In the first topic, religion, Handlin and Bodnar have opposing views on the reason
why religion was so important to the new arriving immigrants. Handlin’s thesis is that the
immigrants felt that the one thing they could bring with them to the new world was their
religion. Not only could they bring their religion but they also needed to find a way to
transplant their daily practices into this new different world.
According to Handlin, religion was extremely important to the immigrants.
Religion gave the immigrants a sense of belonging and everything the immigrants did
pertained to religion. In “The Uprooted” page 108 it says, “The church was familiar to
the peasant day to day existence and “all the acts of worship were embedded in a setting
of which the landscape, the weather, and the sight of the heavens all were aspects.” The
immigrants wanted to bring this lifestyle to the New World, but to their surprise this was
going to be a lot harder then what they expected.
When the immigrants arrived to the U.S they found that “all the conditions of
religious life in America were different from those in the Old World (112)”. In the New
World there was not a set religion. The church and the State were divided. People were
practicing what ever religion they wanted and if they did not want to practice anything,
they did not have to. The immigrants felt lost. The only solution they had to this problem
was to “recreate the old church testifies to the strength of the old ties (113)”. This meant
that the immigrants had to change their practices slightly, to make it strong and
transferable to the New World. Handlin says that doing this task was hard because even
when the immigrants transplanted their religion and practices they were not satisfied.
“There was not a satisfaction that a full religion brought,” and “the outcome was a large
period of internal dissension.” Every immigrant tried to bring their own practices to the
New World. The immigrants were fighting and arguing about different religious ideals
and practices. The process of transplanting their religion became a complete chaos.
John Bodnar thesis is that immigrants migrated to the U.S and used “religion and
ethnic identification to pursue economic and political agendas (145)” rather then as a
means to keep tied to the old world. In Bodnar, church was not about trying to keep ties
with the old world but about getting ahead. Immigrants wanted to be a part of society and
if sacrificing their religion was going to get them a place in society, then they were going
to do just that.
Bodnar says that religion was based on “ region, family, neighborhood and even
social class (148).” As one could see there was no mention of faith, religion or any type
of practices. The immigrants were not going to church for faith, beliefs or ideology. It
seemed like the church was a place of social gathering to keep social ties rather then a
place where people looked for God. As well Bodnar says that people went to church
communities because these church communities provided “mutual assistance.” Many of
the immigrants needed food and money and if being part of a church was going to
provide those necessities then the immigrants were going to go to church.
Lastly, Bodnar argues that the Church was not meeting the religious needs of the
immigrants. The immigrants supported the church, gave money and help out but that’s it.
It seemed like the purpose of the church was no longer to fill the spiritual needs of its
flocks, but to do everything else. The church was no longer a place where immigrants
went to find God.
I feel that Handlin’s argument is more persuasive then Bodnar. The immigrants
came to the U.S displaced and when they got here they wanted to bring a piece of the old
world in to the New World. The immigrants needed stability and bringing their religion
and practices meant bringing stability. It is hard to believe that a group of people are
going to slander their religion for a status in society. That seems very secular and sounds
like an dissenter, something that the immigrants did not want to be associated with.
As well Handlin’s argument seems more persuasive because in the society that
immigrants came from, status was not important. Having money or fame wasn’t part of
the beliefs of the immigrants. The immigrants didn’t believe in having extra of this or
extra of that. The immigrants were meek people that lived their life with just enough. The
immigrants never had a luxurious life and when they came to the U.S, and saw the way
people lived, having a luxorious life was not appealing to them and it seems like Bodnar
is saying the opposite of this. So the argument of the immigrants wanting status and
money does not seem to be valid.
The second topic both authors discuss is the migration of immigrants to the
United States. Bodnar’s thesis is that the immigrants did not migrate to the U.S because
of “improvishment or economic disadvantage.” As well Bodnar says that the immigrants
who came to the U.S were in the lower- middle class status. On page three of the
transplanted Bodnar says that the trend of immigrants going to the U.S was “unrelated to
capital flow and American economic expansion.” Meaning that people were not
traveling to America because there was lots of money flowing and plenty of jobs
available.
Bodnar also says that the immigrants who migrated to the U.S “consisted of
individuals with specific industrial skills (6),” and entirely middle class: small famers and
independent artisans (13).” These specific workers had some type of money. They were
not starving or homeless. They had enough to get by, maybe even a little more. They
were able to support their families. There reason for leaving their country had nothing to
do with being poor, starving or not having money.
Lastly Bodnar says that the lower class and apprentice were not able to migrate to
the U.S (15). The lower class immigrants and apprentice did not have enough money or
money at all to afford the trip from their country to the U.S. Immigrants that were from
“areas of either neglible or extremely high poverty was least (6),” to travel to the United
States. The lower class could not leave; they did not have the resources to do so. The only
population that would leave because of improvishment and economic disadvantage were
not able to do so because they lacked the proper resources.
Handlin’s thesis is that the immigrants, including peasants left their country
because of improvishment and economic disadvantage. The peasants could no longer
stand being in their country and the only way to survive was migrating to the U.S.
Handlin tell us that the immigrants, especially the peasantry were having a hard time
getting food, money and paying their rent. It was so bad that “whether the harvest be rich
or poor, the folk found themselves always poorer (25).” The immigrants tried anything
and everything to get money and food, but no matter what they did they were always
stuck in the same place, poor.
Then a famine hit. The peasants only had two options, “to flight or death by
starvation (30).” “Then the peasants could no longer hang on, when even to stay meant to
change, they had to leave (30).” Handlin shows that the peasants had to leave because of
economic disadvantages. There was no money, no food, there was nothing and the only
chance of staying alive was migrating to the U.S to look for a better life, a job, money
and food.
The peasants had very little money and they needed to get to the new world. Some
peasants would sell what they had left whether It was “goods or lands (30).” These
things would be sold in order to afford the cost of migrating to the U.S, and if the
peasants did not have enough money the church would give them aid so that they could
buy their ticket. As well some peasants would receive money and or tickets from their
families that were already in the new world. The peasants who had very little found ways
to get their ticket. With this help “hundreds of thousands of peasants came to migrate to
the U.S (31).” The peasants worked hard to get to the new world.
From the arguments made by Handlin and Bodnar I feel that Handlin again has a
more persuasive argument. Handlin stresses that the peasants had no choice to leave; if
they stayed in their country they were going to die. The country was poor, the harvest
was bad and the peasants were not making enough money to make ends meet. Everything
that made the peasants leave had to do with money. The peasants could not afford food;
they could not afford to pay the rent on their land. There was never enough of anything.
The new world offered jobs. Jobs brought money and with the money the peasants made
in the new world they could eat, have a roof over their head, send money to their families
or help bring their other family member’s to the new world.
For Bodnar to say that immigrants migrating to the new world had nothing to do
with economic disadvantages is way off. Even with out reading these two book, there is a
general conception that people who came to the U.S came looking for a better life
financially. The U.S is known as a place of opportunity that anyone could make it big in.
If the immigrants didn’t come to the U.S because of improvishment and economic
disadvantage what was the other reason for them to come to the U.S. I don’t believe that
there is any other reason.
Both Handlin and Bodnar make great arguments on the topics of religion and
immigrants migrating to the U.S. Both brought facts to back up their argument but I
believe that Handlin’s arguments on both topic are more persuasive and more ideal.
Handlin arguments makes a lot more sense then Bodnar and his arguments seems more
realistic. I believe that Handlin is the more persuasive author in both topics.