3. The ethnic composition of the American population.
Major ethnic groups and minorities. Civil rights movements in America. From “melting pot” through “cultural
pluralism” to multiculturalism.
The U.S. population for July 2002 was estimated by the Census Bureau to be 288,368,698, a 2.47% increase over the July
2000 estimate of 281,421,906. The U.S. population more than tripled during the 20th century, a growth rate of about 1.3%
a year, having been about 76 million in 1900. As of April 2005, the population has been estimated by the Census Bureau
to be 295,900,000.
Race
 White 77.11%,
 Black 12.3%,
 Asian 3.6%,
 Amerindian 0.9%,
 Two or more races 2.4%,
 other 5.5% (2000)
July 2002
estimate
New York City, New York 8,084,316
Los Angeles, California
3,798,981
Chicago, Illinois
2,886,251
Houston, Texas
2,009,834
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,492,231
Phoenix, Arizona
1,371,960
San Diego, California
1,259,532
Dallas, Texas
1,211,467
Detroit, Michigan
925,051
San Jose, California
900,443
Rank Trend City
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
July 2000
2003 estimate
estimate
8,008,278
3,694,820
2,896,016
1,953,631
1,517,550 1,479,339
1,321,045
1,223,400
1,118,580
951,270
894,943
CHAPTER 13 : CIVIL RIGHTS
13.0 Introduction
The term "civil rights" refers to the rights of individuals safeguarded by the Constitution against encroachment by
government. Thus the American Constitution seeks to ensure to every American his basic civil rights, to enjoy his life and
liberty and to pursue his happiness without discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or any other irrelevant
characteristic. The concept of civil rights arises from the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which
lays down that "...nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is true that the Declaration of Independence laid down the idea of individual dignity and equality. The Bill of Rights
further reaffirmed this belief. However it has been the central preoccupation of Americans to act by this creed, and to see
that African Americans, (or Mexican Americans or American Indians) are given the constitutional rights as well as the
educational and social opportunities to take full part in the political system created by the American Constitution. Since
under the Constitution each person has the right to live, work and participate in public affairs, free of discrimination
because of his race, religion or national origin. There are several important landmarks in the civil rights crusade in
America.
13.1 Slavery and Civil Rights
Though the Declaration of Independence had declared that "all men are created equal," slavery was considered to be a
legal institution in America, where every circumstance of man and nature tried to promote freedom and equality. The first
shipload of Negro slaves arrived in Virginia in 1619, and by 1790 there were 700,000 slaves in the American colonies.
Slavery soon spread in the South after the cotton gin was invented in 1795, leading to a rapid increase in cotton culture.
However, in 1785, the Northwest Land Ordinance of the Confederation Congress provided that "there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime..."
The framers of the Constitution were forced to compromise with slavery only on the issue of punishment of crime.
However when the constitutional period of grace expired in 1808, the Congress prohibited the further importation of
slaves. Yet there were several laws restricting or preventing African Americans from voting, holding public office,
serving on juries or joining the defense services.
13.1a The Missouri Compromise
1
It became evident by 1820 that opinion regarding slavery was sharply divided. In 1819, the Missouri Territory, which
permitted slavery, applied for statehood. This gave rise to objections from the free states, as the number of slave and free
states were equal at this point. Therefore, the balance would be tipped in favor of slavery, if Missouri were admitted.
Henry Clay then worked out the Missouri Compromise, by admitting Maine as a free state, thus maintaining the balance.
It was agreed that territories north of attitude 36° 30’ would be free. After this, states were admitted in pairs, as for
example Arkansas in 1836 and Michigan in 1837, Florida in 1845 and Iowa in 1846, Texas in 1845 and Wisconsin in
1848.
13.1b The Compromise of 1850
At the end of the Mexican war, the U.S. acquired some territory. The issue of the extension of slavery was once raised. In
conclusion to several debates, a series of laws referred to as the Compromise of 1850, were approved by the Congress.
According to this compromise, California was admitted as a free state. The slave trade was ended in the District of
Columbia. The New Mexico and Utah territories were organized without any restrictions on slavery. It was considered to
be a federal offense to harbor an escaped slave, under a newly-made fugitive slave law in the South.
13.1c The Dred Scott decision
In the case of Dred Scott Versus Scandford (1857), the Supreme gave the ruling that a Negro could not become a citizen
of the U.S. It was laid down by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney that the term "citizen" was never meant to include African
Americans, who thus could not claim any rights under the Constitution. The Missouri compromise was also declared to be
unconstitutional by Taney, as it denied property rights to slave owners.
13.1d The Emancipation Proclamation and the Abolition of Slavery
After the Civil War (1861-1865) began, the issue of slavery was also added on to the initial objective the war. The war
had originally begun on the point of whether states could withdraw from the union. It was the Northern states that brought
the issue over slavery into the picture. President Lincoln issued an Emancipation Proclamation, a war measure in 1863.
Though the Southern states readily accepted the abolition of slavery as a result of the war, slavery was really abolished
only after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. This amendment provided that "neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The Southern states were required to accept this condition if they
wished to be readmitted into the Union.
13.2 Segregation in the United States
Though the end of slavery was a significant landmark in the civil rights crusade, the former slaves did not manage to
secure equality. Black codes were laws used in the South, in order to limit the ability of the former slaves to find work
and to leave the plantations. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on the African Americans. After the
Civil War was won by the North, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments became part of the Constitution.
They sought to grant to the African Americans all rights enjoyed by every other American; to abolish all badges of
servitude while reaffirming the citizenship of the African Americans.
However the Civil Rights Acts were so narrowly construed by the Supreme Court, that they grew ineffective. The court
gave a very limited construction to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as protection against social
discriminations. Thus no individual could be prosecuted by the federal government for discriminatory acts. The states
were supposed to handle lynching and mob violence. Therefore, by the end of Reconstruction period in 1877, the African
Americans realized that though the Constitution promised "equal protection", they would be denied their civil rights.
They were kept away from the polls, forced to accept menial jobs and denied educational opportunities.
13.2a Jim Crow Laws
In 1875, the Congress had passed a law extending to all citizens "the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations,
advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters and other places of public
amusement..." However a group of decisions, called the Civil Rights Cases were taken in 1883, which struck down this
Civil Rights Act of 1875. This new act was passed in order to maintain racial segregation. The Jim Crow Laws, as these
statutes came to be called, soon put into effect an active segregation of people on a racial basis, by making it a crime for
whites and blacks to travel in the same car or train, attend the same theater, or go to the same school. Thus there were also
separate restrooms and drinking fountains and special visiting hours at museums for the African Americans. Since it
gained a legal sanction, this was referred to as de jure segregation.
13.2b Separate but Equal Doctrine
After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the abolition of slavery, it was unconstitutional for governments
to discriminate against African Americans or any other racial or religious groups. However, in the case of Plessy versus
Ferguson (1896), a Louisiana statute providing for "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races",
was sustained. Plessy, who was one-eighth African, was imprisoned for refusing to ride in a railway car reserved for
Negroes. The Supreme Court ruled that the states by law could require the separation of races in public places, long as
equal facilities were equally provided. Under the separate but equal principle, segregation was enforced in transportation,
places of public accommodation, and education, by several states, most of which were in the South. However, the services
rendered to the African Americans was hardly equal. For instance, black schools only had access to the discarded
textbooks and lab equipment from white schools. In fact almost all the facilities provided to the African Americans were
extremely inferior.
2
In the field of sports too, segregation was maintained; African Americans played in the Negro leagues since major-league
baseball was segregated till 1947. This practice was further aided by the film industry, which relegated to African
Americans the roles of domestics, or produced "all-Negro" films that were screened in segregated theaters. Segregation
spread beyond the South, to places such as Chicago and Los Angeles.
Efforts were made to exclude the African Americans from the political avenue through the imposition of poll taxes,
literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and property qualifications that restricted the African Americans' right to vote. These
restrictions left a negligible number of African Americans turning up for voting.
13.3 Breaking down Segregation
Through it has been a difficult task to break down segregation, in the early stages progress was made through presidential
actions and court decisions. Although segregation codified by law no longer exists, de facto segregation based on income
and housing patterns persists.
13.3a Executive actions
After World War II, considerable progress was made when President Harry Truman ordered the end of discrimination in
federal employment and the abolition of segregation in the armed forces. This led to the disbanding of segregated units in
the U.S. Army within three years. During the Korean War, blacks and whites fought side by side, for the first time.
However, difficulties cropped up when Truman tried to push his civil rights program through the Congress, as the
southern Democrats were against a federal anti-lynching law, the outlawing of poll taxes, and the creation of a civil rights
commission. It was observed that the courts were more interested in these matters.
13.3b Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka
In 1952, the Supreme Court agreed to consider five cases involving elementary and secondary schools. These cases
challenged the separate but equal doctrine. For two years, the court dealt with the constitutionality of statutes in Kansas,
South Carolina Virginia and Delaware, permitting or requiring the maintenance of separate elementary and high schools
for Negro and white students. In the case of Brown versus Board of Education and in 1954, in a unanimous opinion
written by Chief Justice Warren, the courts stated that the considerations that led to the rejection of separate schools at
graduate and professional levels "apply with added force to children in grade and high school. To separate them from
others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race, generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in
the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…" It was concluded that "in
the field of public education the doctrine of ’separate but equal’ has no place."
The Supreme Court was aware that its decisions conflicted with long established southern customs. It thus postponed any
final decree for a year, being aware of the formidable problems involved. The Supreme Court then directed local school
authorities to proceed "with all deliberate speed" to make a prompt and reasonable start toward the admission of Negroes
to public schools on a non-discriminatory basis. However, the court permitted the local officials to take time to make the
necessary administrative adjustments. Moreover, while the courts ordered desegregation, integration was not mentioned at
all. While desegregation refers to eliminating laws that demand segregation, integration implies taking definite
measures to balance ratios of the students of different races. The supervision of the implementation of desegregation by
local school authorities was left to the federal district judges. After its rulings in the Brown case, law after law requiring
racial segregation was struck down by the Supreme Court.
13.3c Issues in School Desegregation
Though the Supreme Court declared racial segregation in the public schools as unconstitutional, some school officials in
the South attempted to avoid desegregation orders by various methods. Pupils were assigned to segregated schools for
reasons other than race. Schools to which Negroes were assigned were closed down under the pretext of violence as
justification for delaying action. ’De facto’ segregation arose in the North, owing to racial segregation in housing. Thus
black children were often crowded into schools with very few resources. In the early 1970s busing and racial quotas
were applied to districts that had practiced legal segregation. The African American started filing lawsuits to show
examples of discrimination against them. In the North and South, there were strong protests against busing, which led to
white flight; white students began to leave public schools for private schools.
13.4 The Civil Rights Movement
A decade after the Supreme Court declared that public school segregation was unconstitutional, most African American
children in the South continued to receive education in segregated schools. In the Northern cities, segregation in housing
and education was an established pattern. Indeed laws had been enacted by the Congress, injunctions had been issued by
judges. Presidents had proclaimed executive orders and appointed commissions, yet African Americans could not buy a
house where they desired, secure the job they required or find educational facilities for their children. Organizations, such
as the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) established in 1909, fought to end
discrimination.
13.4a Civil disobedience
By 1963, the struggles in the courts were supplemented by a massive social, economic and political movements. A new
dimension was provided to the struggle for civil rights by the charismatic leader, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
through his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and his doctrine of nonviolent resistance. This civil
disobedience movement sought to fight against unjust laws by deliberately breaking them. It originated in 1955 in
3
Montgomery, Alabama, when the Negro community engaged in a boycott of the city buses to protest against segregation
practiced on them. The protest was successful and public transport was segregated within a year.
By the early 1960s there were sit-ins, freedom rides, live-ins, and mass demonstrations supported and sponsored by new
organizational resources. A national crisis was created in the summer of 1963, by the forces of social discontent. A
demonstration was held in Birmingham, Alabama, which was countered by the use of fire hoses, police dogs and mass
arrests. It culminated in a march in Washington D.C., where over 100,000 people listened to King speak of his dream of
the day when children "will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of
their character." At the end of the summer, there was a demonstration, protest, or sit in almost every city, together with
riots in same cities. Activists, both black and white, known as Freedom Riders, came to the South to participate in the
civil rights crusade, which received extensive news coverage.
As a result of this direct action, civil rights ordinances were enacted in many cities. The existing legislation was
broadened. More schools were desegregated. At the national level, President Kennedy urged the Congress to enact a
comprehensive civil rights bill, in a dramatic address to the nation.
13.4b Civil Rights Legislation
After extensive debate, the Civil Rights Acts were passed by the Congress in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. The Act of
1957 created a Commission on Civil Rights to investigate allegations of racial discrimination, appraise governmental
policy regarding equal protection, and serve as a clearing-house for information. The provisions of the Acts of 1957 and
1960 aimed at strengthening the legal provisions and administrative machinery for safeguarding voting rights.
The Act of 1964 made it illegal for any employer to discriminate in his employment practices against anyone because of
race, religion or sex, or for labor unions to use these criteria in admitting members. Under this Act, all persons were
entitled to equal services in places of public accommodation (including hotels, restaurants, theaters and sports arenas
without racial discrimination. The Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in any activity supported financially by the
U.S. Each federal department and agency was authorized to formulate and administer rules (including the withdrawal of
funds) designed to prevent racial discrimination.
The chief effect of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was to outlaw literacy tests as a qualification for voting. It also
authorized direct action by federal executives to register voters and to see that these voters were allowed to cast their
ballot and that their ballots were honestly counted.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned discrimination in housing, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex.
13.4c Racial Violence
While African Americans persisted in their pursuit of equal rights, the highly volatile situation gave way to racial violence
and disorder. 1965 was the year of the Watts riot in Los Angles and the Detroit riot in July 1967 was the worst race riot in
American history, which led President Johnson to discuss the growing urban crisis, on a nationwide television broadcast.
In order to establish a decent and orderly society in America, the President urged an attack on ignorance, discrimination,
slums, poverty, disease and unemployment. A special advisory commission on Civil Disorders was appointed to contain
such disasters in future. It made sweeping recommendations concerning employment, education, housing and the welfare
system and called for "a commitment to national action on an unprecedented scale." However segregation of the races
was approved of by Black Muslims who were ready to use violent methods, while the Black Panther party advocated
"Black Power."
13.5 Civil Rights for Minorities and Women
The U.S. has been populated by immigrants coming from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Some of them have
remained apart and preserved their identity as "minorities" belonging to all the races of mankind, to every nationality
group and every religious faith, have been denied equality of opportunity. Their separate identity as racial minorities, the
disabled, homosexuals or women, has left them open to discriminatory action in the fields of housing, education and
employment.
13.5a Hispanic Americans
The Hispanic Americans tried to achieve increased voter registration and access to educational opportunities through
organizations such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the United Farm Workers Union, La
Raza Unida and the League of United Latin American citizens.
13.5b Native Americans
Through the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Native Americans sought to recover their heritage and raise their
voice after years of neglect and discrimination. Civil disobedience was used as a weapon by them, to highlight issues of
land claims, as for example through the takeover of Alcatraz Island in 1969 and the occupation of Wounded Knee, South
Dakota. They were also concerned about overcoming stereotypes about themselves.
13.5c Disabled Americans
The people who were physically or mentally handicapped, as well as people suffering from AIDS, former drug or alcohol
abusers, were protected with regard to transportation, public accommodation, employment and telephone services through
the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. It also provides for the application of the provisions of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to the handicapped who cannot be ignored.
4
13.5d Homosexuals
This group did not meet with much success in its efforts against discrimination. It is still debatable as to whether people
opting for "lifestyle choices" should be granted special treatment. Gay marriages have not been given legal sanction, as
this would entitle such couples for a number of privileges. Further, the armed services do not recruit homosexuals.
13.5e Women
Several restrictions against women were removed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which included sex among the other
criteria (such as race, age, religion and national origin), that could not be discriminated against. The ratification of the
Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 also constitutionally protected a woman’s right to vote. It was not until the 1980s,
women were restrained from owning property.
Successful campaigns for equal employment and salary, as well as against sexual harassment, has been carried out by the
National Organization for Women (NOW). After the Civil Rights Act was amended in 1972, federal funds were denied
to public and private institutions that carried out discrimination against women. It also imposed a requirement of equality
of sports programs in the schools, for both men and women.
Several tests have been used in order to determine discrimination on the basis of sex. These include the rationality test,
which considers a law as constitutional if it has rational enough basis. Another is the heightened scrutiny test, and the
strict scrutiny test which require a demonstration of "substantial" or "compelling" state interest behind the law.
13.6 Affirmative Action
Affirmative action includes several programs aimed at achieving equality of outcome, as well as equality of opportunity.
Thus methods such as preferential recruitment and treatment, numerical goals, quotas and set aside in employment, are
used to remedy the previous effects of discrimination. This preferential treatment is evident when the minority groups
enter into contracts with a municipal or state agency. For instance, companies that are Minority or Women Business
Enterprises (MBE/ WBE) may be favored over companies owned by white males.
13.6a Reverse discrimination
The Supreme Court issued an unusual ruling in the controversial case of Regents of the University of California versus
Bakke in 1978. It stated that the practice of setting aside a specific number of places in a medical school class for
minorities, was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment. It also ordered that admission
should be given to a white applicant who had earlier been denied it.
13.6b Challenges to affirmative action
The workplace and several public institutions have changed, owing to affirmative action policies, which have been highly
beneficial to white women. Many state and federal programs that were discriminating on the basis of race and gender,
were struck down by the courts during the 1990s. Though public opinion broadly supports ending affirmative actions,
initiatives to end them has been challenged in the federal court
A melting pot is a metaphor for the way in which heterogenous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot
(iron, tin; people of different backgrounds and religions, etc.) are processed until they lose their discrete identities and
yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, but which is quite different from the original inputs. This process
is also known as amalgamation.
Origins of the term
Popular use of the melting-pot metaphor is believed to have derived from Englishman Israel Zangwill's play The Melting
Pot, which was first performed in Washington, D.C. in 1908.
The melting pot idea is most strongly associated with the United States, particularly in reference to "model" immigrant
groups of the past. Past generations of immigrants in America, it is argued by some, became successful by working to
shed their historic identities and adopt the ways of their new country. The concept of shedding one's native culture and
becoming absorbed into the ways of the "host" society is known as assimilation.
Melting pot vs. multiculturalism
The idea of multiculturalism is often put forward as an alternative to assimilation. This theory, which contrasts to the
melting pot theory, is described as the salad bowl theory, or, as it is known in Canada, the cultural mosaic. In the
multicultural approach, each "ingredient" retains its integrity and flavor, while contributing to a successful final product.
In recent years, this approach is offically promoted in traditional melting-pot societies such as Canada and Britain, with
the intent of becoming more tolerant of immigrant diversity. It is difficult to assess how extensively a single government
can pursue one approach or another, and whether or not it is actually up to the immigrants themselves. Immigrant
communities in the United States, for example, display the influences of both multicultural and melting-pot approaches.
On the one hand, an American city might offer voting instructions in multiple languages, to assist speakers of minority
tongues. On the other, the children of these adult speakers, in school, might be given instruction in the English language
alone.
The decision of whether to support a melting-pot or multicultural approach has developed into an issue of much debate.
Many multiculturalists argue that the melting pot theory is simply an instrument of intolerance that forces third world
peoples and other immigrants to abandon their cultures in order to be accepted into mainstream society. Assimilationists
(as proponents of the melting pot theory are called), on the other hand, assert that multiculturalism will only destroy the
fabric of society due to the ethnic divisions and economic burden that multiculturalist policies create. Therefore this issue
encompasses a number of issues ranging from idealism and realism, socialism and capitalism, and more.
5
Multiculturalist view of the melting-pot theory
Multiculturalists typically support loose immigration controls and programs such bilingual education and affirmative
action (or positive discrimination), which offer certain privileges to minority and/or immigrant groups.
Multiculturalists claim that assimilation can have negative implications for minority cultures, in that after assimilation the
distinctive features of the minority culture will be minimized and may disappear altogether. In support of this,
multiculturalists point to situations where institutions of the dominant culture initiate programs to assimilate or integrate
minority cultures.
Although some multiculturalists admit that assimilation may result in a relatively homogenous society, with a strong
sense of nationalism, they warn however, that where minorities are strongly urged to assimilate, there may arise groups
which fiercely oppose integration. With assimilation, immigrants lose their original cultural (and often linguistic) identity
and so do their children. Immigrants who fled persecution or a country devastated by war were historically resilient to
abandoning their heritage once they had settled in a new country.
Multiculturalists note that assimilation, in practice, has often been forced, and has caused immigrants to have severed ties
with family abroad. In the United States, the use of languages other than English in a classroom setting has traditionally
been discouraged. Decades of this policy may have contributed to the fact--lamented by multiculturalists--that more than
80 percent of Americans speak only English at home. While an estimated 60 million U.S. citizens are of German descent,
forming the country's largest ethic group, barely one million of them reported speaking German in their homes in the
2000 Census.
Assimilationist view of the melting-pot theory
Whereas multiculturalist tend to view the melting-pot theory as oppressive, assimilationists tend to view the idea as
advantageous to both a government and its people. They tend to favor controlled amounts of immigration--enough to
benefit society economically, but not enough to profoundly alter it. Assimilationists tend to be opposed towards programs
that give
Assimilationists might believe that their nation has reached its present state of development because it has been able to
forge one national identity. They argue that separating citizens by ethnicity or race and providing immigrant groups
special privileges can harm the groups it is intended to help. By calling attention to differences between these groups and
the majority, the government can foster resentment by the majority towards them and in turn, cause the immigrant group
to turn inward and shun mainstream culture. Should society make a full effort to incorporate immigrants into the
mainstream, it is argued, immigrants will then naturally work the reciprocate the gesture and adopt new ways of life.
Through this process, national unity is retained.
Assimilationists also argue that the multiculturalist policy of open borders is simply unworkable in an era in which the
supply of immigrants from third world countries seems limitless. With immigrants often coming from multiple sources, it
may be excessively expensive to provide them all special treatment. From an employment perspective, they note that job
markets are often tight to begin with and that expecting large amounts of newcomers to find work each year is simply
unrealistic. Allowing continued heavy immigration, it is argued, will inevitably lead to widespread poverty and other
forms of disadvantagement among the immigrant class. The melting-pot theory works best, in their view, when the
"ingredients" are added in modest increments, so that they can be properly absorbed into the whole.
A Compromise between Multiculturalists and Assimilationists?
There also exists a view that attempts to reconcile some of the differences between multiculturalists and nationalists.
Proponents of this view propose that immigrants need not completely abandon their culture and traditions in order to
reach the goal that the melting pot theory seeks. This reasoning relies on the assumption that immigrants can be persuaded
to ultimately consider themselves a citizen of their new nation first and of their nation of birth second. In this way, they
may still retain and practice all of their cultural traditions but "when push comes to shove" they will put their host nation's
interests first. If this can be accomplished, immigrants will then avoid hindering the progress, unity and growth that
assimilationsts argue are the positive results of the melting pot theory - while simultaneously appeasing some of the
multiculturalists.
This compromised view also supports a strong stance on immigration, English as primary language in school with the
option to study foreign languages. (A consensus on affirmative action does not currently exist.) Proponents of this
compromise claim that the difference with this view and that of the assimilationists is that while their view of the melting
pot essentially strips immigrants of their culture, the compromise allows immigrants to continue practicing and
propagating their cultures from generation to generation and yet sustain and instill a love for their host country first and
above all. Whether this kind of delicate balance between host and native countries among immigrants can be achieved
remains to be seen.
The melting pot in pop culture
The melting pot remains a stock phrase in American political and cultural dialogue. The general perception of its process
and effects can be summed up in "The Great American Melting Pot" song from Schoolhouse Rock!
The melting pot is a metaphor for the way in which heterogenous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot
(iron, tin; people of different backgrounds and religions, etc.) are processed until they lose their discrete identities and
yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor, but which is quite different from the original inputs. This process
is also known as amalgamation.
6
The metaphor of the melting pot comes from Englishman Israel Zangwill's play The Melting Pot, which was first
performed in Washington, D.C. in 1908.
The melting pot idea is most strongly associated with the 19th century United States. It was believed that the floods of
immigrants coming to America worked to shed their historic identities and adopt the American way. The use of the
English language also strengthen the melting pot ideology.
The idea of multiculturalism is often put forward as an alternative to amalgamation. This theory, which contrasts to the
melting pot theory, is described as the salad bowl theory, or, in Canada, the cultural mosaic. In the multicultural
approach, each "ingredient" retains its integrity and flavor, while contributing to a successful final product. In recent
years, this approach has been officially adopted in traditional melting-pot societies such as Canada and Britain, with the
intent of becominig more tolerant of immigrant diversity. It is difficult to assess how extensively a single country follows
one approach or another, often immigrants themselves make the decision. The modern United States, for example, has
elements of both multicultural and melting-pot approaches.
In amalgamation, new arrivals are assimilated into the dominant culture, multiculturalism takes a more pluralistic
approach.
Today, the idea of an American melting pot has developed into an issue of much debate. Many multiculturalists argue that
the melting pot theory is simply an instrument of intolerance that forces third world peoples and other immigrants to
abandon their cultures in order to be accepted into American society. American nationalists (proponents of the melting
pot theory), on the other hand, assert that multiculturalism will only destroy the great American experiment due to the
ethnic divisions and economic burden that multiculturalism creates. Therefore this issue encompasses a number of issues
ranging from idealism and realism, socialism and capitalism, and more.
Multiculturalist view of the "melting pot" theory
Multiculturalists claim that assimilation can have negative implications for minority or native cultures, in that after
assimilation the distinctive features of the minority or native culture will be minimized and may disappear altogether. In
support of this, multiculturalists point to situations where institutions of the dominant culture initiate programs to
assimilate or integrate minority cultures.
Although some multiculturalists admit that assimilation may result in a relatively homogenous society, with a strong
sense of nationalism, they warn however, that where minorities are strongly urged to assimilate, there may arise groups
which fiercely oppose integration. With assimilation, immigrants lose their original cultural (and often linguistic) identity
and so do their children. Immigrants who fled persecution or a country devastated by war were historically resilient to
abandoning their heritage once they had settled in a new country.
Assimilation can also be forced, as well as voluntary. Perhaps the best known application of forced assimilation is in
regards to the United States. In 1879, Army Captain Richard Pratt opened the United States Indian Training and
Industrial School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The school integrated Indians into white society, and took "before and after"
photographs.
American multiculturalists typically support open borders or weak immigration control, bilingual education, affirmative
action and international unity above national patriotism.
Nationalist view of the "melting pot" theory
Whereas multiculturalist tend to view the melting pot theory as oppressive, nationalists tend to view the idea as
advantageous to both a government and its people.
For example, American nationalists believe that the United States has developed into the world’s greatest democracy
because it has been able to build one nation from many peoples. They argue that by separating Americans by ethnicity or
race through bilingualism, ethnic separatism, and affirmative action, not only harms the groups it is intended to help, but
also undermines the American core principles of liberty and equality. By allowing all people, without regard to race or
background, to have equal opportunity in obtaining personal freedom and economic prosperity (as America does), they
alone will choose to become part of the American melting pot in order to create a culture that can stand as a beacon to all
the world. They argue that this new American culture should be the glue that holds the people of this nation together.
With a lack of racial and ethnic boundaries, American-made peoples from all walks of life will work together to lead the
world to a bright future through the example of unity. Nationalists believe that multiculturalism is simply shattering the
goal of national unity.
American nationalists also argue that the multiculturalist policy of open borders is simply unrealistic pointing at the
economy's inability to cope with such an influx of low-skilled immigrants from third world countries. Lack of full
economic assimilation among these low-skilled immigrants is a trend that many nationalists believe will prevent
economic assimilation for subsequent generations. Some propose a closed border policy citing that the old American
melting pot has completed its course. The other side of the aisle wishes to create strict controls on immigration that would
allow for only selected immigrants to join in the continuing melting pot.
American nationalists in full support of the melting pot theory typically call for closed borders or strict immigration
control, English-only in public schools, and end to affirmative action and strong American patriotism.
A Compromise between Multiculturalists and Nationalists?
There also exists a view that attempts to reconcile some of the differences between multiculturalists and nationalists.
Proponents of this view propose that immigrants to the United States need not completely abandon their culture and
7
traditions in order to reach the goal that the melting pot theory seeks. This reasoning relies on the assumption that
immigrants will ultimately consider themselves American first and a citizen of their nation of birth second. In this way,
they may still retain and practice all of their cultural traditions but "when push comes to shove" they will put America
first. Because being "American" should be of utmost importance to immigrants with this mindset, they will in no way
hinder the progress, unity and growth that nationalists argue are the results of the melting pot theory while simultaneously
appeasing some of the multiculturalists fears.
This compromised view also supports a strong stance on immigration, English as primary language in school with the
option to study foriegn languages and American patriotism. A consensus on affirmative action does not currently exist.
Proponents of this compromise claim that the difference with this view and that of the nationalists is that while the
nationalists' view of the melting pot strips immigrants of their culture, the compromise allows immigrants to continue
practicing and propagating their cultures from generation to generation and yet sustain and instill a love for America first
and above all.
Assimilation policy
Cultural assimilation is adhered to by most European countries. One such example is that of France, which started
granting citizenship to all without regards to origin or religion after the French revolution. However, it was always
expected then that when immigrants demanded French citizenship, they wanted to become French nationals. The idea
behind this way of thinking presupposed that one day all peoples would free themselves from their repective monarchies
and accomplish that which occurred in France with regard to citizenship. The belief was that this would then allow for the
elimination of the invisible national boundaries that tend to create so much tension and animosity between different
groups of people and that the world would be one united nation rather than hundreds of feuding nations. However, since
not all peoples succeeded at overthrowing the monarchy in their home country and some (like the Jews or the Gypsies) no
longer had a homeland, a clash of nationalisms occurred inside countries that were very liberal. Such a clash is what
nationalists claim is occurring in America through multiculturalist policies.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism or cultural pluralism is a policy, ideal, or reality that emphasizes the unique characteristics of
different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in immigrant receiving nations. The word was first
used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to
other English-speaking countries.
Descriptive Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism...is a theory (albeit vague) about the foundations of a culture rather than a practice which subsumes
cultural ideas. (Harrison, 1984)
On the large scale, the term is often used to describe societies (especially nations) which exhibit a range of distinct
cultural groups, usually as a result of immigration. This can lead to anxiety about the stability of national identity, yet can
also lead to cultural exchanges that benefit the different cultural groups. Such exchanges range from major
accomplishments in literature, art and philosophy to relatively tokenistic appreciation of variations in music, dress and
new foods.
On the small scale, the term can also be used to refer to specific districts in cities where people of different cultures coexist. The actions of city planners can result in some areas remaining monocultural, often due to pressure groups active in
the local political arena. This term is especially current in the UK.
Official Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism can also be a prescriptive term which describes government policy.
In dealing with immigrants groups and their cultures, there are essentially three approaches Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government
policy is to assimilate immigrants. These countries have policies aiming at the social integration of immigrant
groups to the national culture. This is typical of nations that define themselves as one and indivisible and do not
recognize the existence of other nations within their midst.
 Melting Pot: In the United States the traditional view has been for a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures
are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. However, many states have different language policies
within the union.
 Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that
immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one
nation. Today, this is the official policy of Canada and Australia. Multiculturalism has been described as
preserving a "cultural mosaic" of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a "melting pot" that mixes them.
No country falls completely into one, or another, of these categories. For example, France has made efforts to adapt
French culture to new immigrant groups, while Canada still has many policies that work to encourage assimilation.
Some, such as Diane Ravitch, use the term multiculturalism differently, describing both the melting pot, and Canada's
cultural mosaic as being multicultural and refers to them as pluralistic and particularist multiculturalism. Pluralistic
multiculturalism views each culture or subculture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the
whole culture. Particularist multiculturalism is more concerned with preserving the distinctions between cultures.
8
Origins
"Multiculturalism" became incorporated into official policies in several nations in the 1970s for reasons that varied from
country to country.
In Canada, it was adopted in 1971 in the aftermath of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a
government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province
of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government recognize Canada as a bilingual and
bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions.
Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of unhyphenated
Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism.
While many Canadians of British descent disliked the new policies of biculturalism and official bilingualism, the
strongest opposition to biculturalism came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third
Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population
was tiny compared to other groups such as the Ukrainian Canadians, the group that was arguably most important in
modifying the policy of biculturalism. To accommodate these groups, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and
biculturalism" to "bilingualism and multiculturalism."
The Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau passed the Official Multiculturalism Act in 1971. Symbolically, this legislation
affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic
groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and the
construction of community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral
considerations. After its election in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse
these policies, although they had earlier been criticized by Tories as inconsistent with "unhyphenated Canadianism." This
policy has been supported by every subsequent government and was added to Canada's 1982 constitution.
Implementation
Around the world, important government multicultural policies can include:
 dual citizenship
 government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages
 support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations
 acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general
 support for arts from cultures around the world
 programs to encourage minority representation in politics, education, and the work force
While multiculturalist policies oppose cultural assimilation, countries such as Canada do support structural assimilation.
Immigrant groups are still encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority languages, and enter the
labour force.
Official multiculturalism around the world
The other country to have most fully adopted Canada's view of multiculturalism is Australia where many of these policies
related to multiculturalism are pursued, for example the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service.
In the United States multiculturalism is not an official policy at the federal level. At the state level, it is sometimes
associated with English-Spanish bilingualism. However, the government, in recent years, moved to support many
multiculturalist policies. In some ways, the United States has gone even further than Canada and Australia with such
policies. For instance, California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages and gerrymandered districts to
guarantee minority representation in government.
Multiculturalism, along with other identity politics, has, in part, been so successful because it is a useful tool for
politicians to win the votes of minority groups. Government money for cultural celebrations or ethnic-specific newspapers
can encourage new immigrants to support the governing party.
Criticisms
There have been many criticisms of official multiculturalism from both the left and right. Criticizing the policies can be
difficult, however, because they can quickly lead to accusations of racism and xenophobia.
Criticisms of multiculturalism can focus on the circumstances of one country or they can be more general.
Criticisms of Multiculturalism in General
One of the dangers of pursuing multiculturist social policies is that social integration and cultural assimilation can be held
back. This can potentially encourage economic disparities and an exclusion of minority groups from mainstream politics.
The political commentator Matthew Parris has questioned whether the pursuit of particularist multiculturalism is not
apartheid by another name.
One of the most forceful critics of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who condemned the world-wide ethnic revival of the
late 1960s as a manifestation of tribalization that would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial
societies. Her philosophy considers multiculturalism to be based on the same premise as monoculturalism; this premise
being culturally determinist collectivism (i.e., that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are
conditioned irreversibly by society).Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that: 1) it
undermines the concept of free will, and 2) the human mind (according to her philosophy) is a tabula rasa at birth.
Combining these two premises, she concludes that we all can modify our actions volitionally, assuming we modify the
9
premises we hold to support those actions (which is also volitional). Since this thinking was also her basis for rejecting
racism, Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists/Post-Objectivists consider multiculturalism to be akin to racism.
Country-specific criticisms
United States:
Diane Ravitch argues that the celebration of multicultural diversity in America is used to mask hostility toward the
mainstream, as multiculturalists would claim that the mainstream has ignored blacks, women, American Indians, and so
on in history.
In his 1991 work, Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the entrenchment of multiculturalism in American
universities has undermined the universalistic values that liberal educations once attempted to foster. In particular, he was
disturbed by the growth of ethnic studies programmes, (e.g., Black Studies).
Americanization
Americanization is the term used for the influence the United States of America has on the culture of other countries,
substituting local culture with something of an American culture. It is often used in a negative context.
One of the principal reasons for this is the U.S.A.'s highly visible global brands (e.g., McDonald's) and widely distributed
media output.
It is often used as a term for fears of cultural substitution and can be compared to American fears of the United States
being changed to be more like Mexico.
Immigration patterns and ethnic composition
The story of the American people is a story of immigration and diversity. The United States has welcomed more
immigrants than any other country -- more than 50 million in all -- and still admits almost 700,000 persons a year. In the
past many American writers emphasized the idea of the melting pot, an image that suggested newcomers would discard
their old customs and adopt American ways. Typically, for example, the children of immigrants learned English but not
their parents' first language. Recently, however, Americans have placed greater value on diversity, ethnic groups have
renewed and celebrated their heritage, and the children of immigrants often grow up being bilingual.
NATIVE AMERICANS
The first American immigrants, beginning more than 20,000 years ago, were intercontinental wanderers: hunters and their
families following animal herds from Asia to America, across a land bridge where the Bering Strait is today. When
Spain's Christopher Columbus "discovered" the New World in 1492, about 1.5 million Native Americans lived in what is
now the continental United States, although estimates of the number vary greatly. Mistaking the place where he landed -San Salvador in the Bahamas -- for the Indies, Columbus called the Native Americans "Indians."
During the next 200 years, people from several European countries followed Columbus across the Atlantic Ocean to
explore America and set up trading posts and colonies. Native Americans suffered greatly from the influx of Europeans.
The transfer of land from Indian to European -- and later American -- hands was accomplished through treaties, wars, and
coercion, with Indians constantly giving way as the newcomers moved west. In the 19th century, the government's
preferred solution to the Indian "problem" was to force tribes to inhabit specific plots of land called reservations. Some
tribes fought to keep from giving up land they had traditionally used. In many cases the reservation land was of poor
quality, and Indians came to depend on government assistance. Poverty and joblessness among Native Americans still
exist today.
The territorial wars, along with Old World diseases to which Indians had no built-up immunity, sent their population
plummeting, to a low of 350,000 in 1920. Some tribes disappeared altogether; among them were the Mandans of North
Dakota, who had helped Meriwether Lewis and William Clark in exploring America's unsettled northwestern wilderness
in 1804-06. Other tribes lost their languages and most of their culture. Nonetheless, Native Americans have proved to be
resilient. Today they number about two million (0.8 percent of the total U.S. population), and only about one-third of
Native Americans still live on reservations.
Countless American place-names derive from Indian words, including the states of Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Idaho. Indians taught Europeans how to cultivate crops that are now staples throughout the
world: corn, tomatoes, potatoes, tobacco. Canoes, snowshoes, and moccasins are among the Indians' many inventions.
THE GOLDEN DOOR
The English were the dominant ethnic group among early settlers of what became the United States, and English became
the prevalent American language. But people of other nationalities were not long in following. In 1776 Thomas Paine, a
spokesman for the revolutionary cause in the colonies and himself a native of England, wrote that "Europe, and not
England, is the parent country of America." These words described the settlers who came not only from Great Britain, but
also from other European countries, including Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, Germany, and Sweden. Nonetheless, in
1780 three out of every four Americans were of English or Irish descent.
Between 1840 and 1860, the United States received its first great wave of immigrants. In Europe as a whole, famine, poor
harvests, rising populations, and political unrest caused an estimated 5 million people to leave their homelands each year.
In Ireland, a blight attacked the potato crop, and upwards of 750,000 people starved to death. Many of the survivors
emigrated. In one year alone, 1847, the number of Irish immigrants to the United States reached 118,120. Today there are
about 39 million Americans of Irish descent.
10
The failure of the German Confederation's Revolution of 1848-49 led many of its people to emigrate. During the
American Civil War (1861-65), the federal government helped fill its roster of troops by encouraging emigration from
Europe, especially from the German states. In return for service in the Union army, immigrants were offered grants of
land. By 1865, about one in five Union soldiers was a wartime immigrant. Today, 22 percent of Americans have German
ancestry.
Jews came to the United States in large numbers beginning about 1880, a decade in which they suffered fierce pogroms in
eastern Europe. Over the next 45 years, 2 million Jews moved to the United States; the Jewish-American population is
now more than 5 million.
During the late 19th century, so many people were entering the United States that the government operated a special port
of entry on Ellis Island in the harbor of New York City. Between 1892, when it opened, and 1954, when it closed, Ellis
Island was the doorway to America for 12 million people. It is now preserved as part of Statue of Liberty National
Monument.
The Statue of Liberty, which was a gift from France to the people of America in 1886, stands on an island in New York
harbor, near Ellis Island. The statue became many immigrants' first sight of their homeland-to-be. These inspiring words
by the poet Emma Lazarus are etched on a plaque at Liberty's base: "Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free, / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed
to me, / I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
UNWILLING IMMIGRANTS
Among the flood of immigrants to North America, one group came unwillingly. These were Africans, 500,000 of whom
were brought over as slaves between 1619 and 1808, when importing slaves into the United States became illegal. The
practice of owning slaves and their descendants continued, however, particularly in the agrarian South, where many
laborers were needed to work the fields.
The process of ending slavery began in April 1861 with the outbreak of the American Civil War between the free states of
the North and the slave states of the South, 11 of which had left the Union. On January 1, 1863, midway through the war,
President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which abolished slavery in those states that had
seceded. Slavery was abolished throughout the United States with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the
country's Constitution in 1865.
Even after the end of slavery, however, American blacks were hampered by segregation and inferior education. In search
of opportunity, African Americans formed an internal wave of immigration, moving from the rural South to the urban
North. But many urban blacks were unable to find work; by law and custom they had to live apart from whites, in rundown neighborhoods called ghettos.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, African Americans, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used boycotts, marches, and
other forms of nonviolent protest to demand equal treatment under the law and an end to racial prejudice.
A high point of this civil rights movement came on August 28, 1963, when more than 200,000 people of all races
gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., to hear King say: "I have a dream that one day on the red
hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveholders will be able to sit down together at the table
of brotherhood....I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by
the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Not long afterwards the U.S. Congress passed laws
prohibiting discrimination in voting, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations.
Today, African Americans constitute 12.7 percent of the total U.S. population. In recent decades blacks have made great
strides, and the black middle class has grown substantially. In 1996, 44 percent of employed blacks held "white-collar"
jobs -- managerial, professional, and administrative positions rather than service jobs or those requiring manual labor.
That same year 23 percent of blacks between ages 18 and 24 were enrolled in college, compared to 15 percent in 1983.
The average income of blacks is lower than that of whites, however, and unemployment of blacks -- particularly of young
men -- remains higher than that of whites. And many black Americans are still trapped by poverty in urban
neighborhoods plagued by drug use and crime.
In recent years the focus of the civil rights debate has shifted. With antidiscrimination laws in effect and blacks moving
steadily into the middle class, the question has become whether or not the effects of past discrimination require the
government to take certain remedial steps. Called "affirmative action," these steps may include hiring a certain number of
blacks (or members of other minorities) in the workplace, admitting a certain number of minority students to a school, or
drawing the boundaries of a congressional district so as to make the election of a minority representative more likely. The
public debate over the need, effectiveness, and fairness of such programs became more intense in the 1990s.
In any case, perhaps the greatest change in the past few decades has been in the attitudes of America's white citizens.
More than a generation has come of age since King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Younger Americans in particular exhibit a
new respect for all races, and there is an increasing acceptance of blacks by whites in all walks of life and social
situations.
LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY
It is not uncommon to walk down the streets of an American city today and hear Spanish spoken. In 1950 fewer than 4
million U.S. residents were from Spanish-speaking countries. Today that number is about 27 million. About 50 percent of
Hispanics in the United States have origins in Mexico. The other 50 percent come from a variety of countries, including
11
El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia. Thirty-six percent of the Hispanics in the United States live in
California. Several other states have large Hispanic populations, including Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida, where
hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing the Castro regime have settled. There are so many Cuban Americans in Miami
that the Miami Herald, the city's largest newspaper, publishes separate editions in English and Spanish.
The widespread use of Spanish in American cities has generated a public debate over language. Some English speakers
point to Canada, where the existence of two languages (English and French) has been accompanied by a secessionist
movement. To head off such a development in the United States, some citizens are calling for a law declaring English the
official American language.
Others consider such a law unnecessary and likely to cause harm. They point to differences between America and Canada
(in Canada, for example, most speakers of French live in one locale, the province of Quebec, whereas speakers of Spanish
are dispersed throughout much of the United States) and cite Switzerland as a place where the existence of multiple
languages does not undermine national unity. Recognition of English as the official language, they argue, would
stigmatize speakers of other languages and make it difficult for them to live their daily lives.
LIMITS ON NEWCOMERS
The Statue of Liberty began lighting the way for new arrivals at a time when many native-born Americans began to worry
that the country was admitting too many immigrants. Some citizens feared that their culture was being threatened or that
they would lose jobs to newcomers willing to accept low wages.
In 1924 Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act. For the first time, the United States set limits on how many
people from each country it would admit. The number of people allowed to emigrate from a given country each year was
based on the number of people from that country already living in the United States. As a result, immigration patterns
over the next 40 years reflected the existing immigrant population, mostly Europeans and North Americans.
Prior to 1924, U.S. laws specifically excluded Asian immigrants. People in the American West feared that the Chinese
and other Asians would take away jobs, and racial prejudice against people with Asian features was widespread. The law
that kept out Chinese immigrants was repealed in 1943, and legislation passed in 1952 allows people of all races to
become U.S. citizens.
Today Asian Americans are one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups in the country. About 10 million people of Asian
descent live in the United States. Although most of them have arrived here recently, they are among the most successful
of all immigrant groups. They have a higher income than many other ethnic groups, and large numbers of their children
study at the best American universities.
A NEW SYSTEM
The year 1965 brought a shakeup of the old immigration patterns. The United States began to grant immigrant visas
according to who applied first; national quotas were replaced with hemispheric ones. And preference was given to
relatives of U.S. citizens and immigrants with job skills in short supply in the United States. In 1978, Congress abandoned
hemispheric quotas and established a worldwide ceiling, opening the doors even wider. In 1990, for example, the top 10
points of origin for immigrants were Mexico (57,000), the Philippines (55,000), Vietnam (49,000), the Dominican
Republic (32,000), Korea (30,000), China (29,000), India (28,000), the Soviet Union (25,000), Jamaica (19,000), and Iran
(18,000).
The United States continues to accept more immigrants than any other country; in 1990, its population included nearly 20
million foreign-born persons. The revised immigration law of 1990 created a flexible cap of 675,000 immigrants each
year, with certain categories of people exempted from the limit. That law attempts to attract more skilled workers and
professionals to the United States and to draw immigrants from countries that have supplied relatively few Americans in
recent years. It does this by providing "diversity" visas. In 1990 about 9,000 people entered the country on diversity visas
from such countries as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Peru, Egypt, and Trinidad and Tobago.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that some 5 million people are living in the United States
without permission, and the number is growing by about 275,000 a year. Native-born Americans and legal immigrants
worry about the problem of illegal immigration. Many believe that illegal immigrants (also called "illegal aliens") take
jobs from citizens, especially from young people and members of minority groups. Moreover, illegal aliens can place a
heavy burden on tax-supported social services.
In 1986 Congress revised immigration law to deal with illegal aliens. Many of those who had been in the country since
1982 became eligible to apply for legal residency that would eventually permit them to stay in the country permanently.
In 1990, nearly 900,000 people took advantage of this law to obtain legal status. The law also provided strong measures to
combat further illegal immigration and imposed penalties on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens.
THE LEGACY
The steady stream of people coming to America's shores has had a profound effect on the American character. It takes
courage and flexibility to leave your homeland and come to a new country. The American people have been noted for
their willingness to take risks and try new things, for their independence and optimism. If Americans whose families have
been here longer tend to take their material comfort and political freedoms for granted, immigrants are at hand to remind
them how important those privileges are.
12
Immigrants also enrich American communities by bringing aspects of their native cultures with them. Many black
Americans now celebrate both Christmas and Kwanzaa, a festival drawn from African rituals. Hispanic Americans
celebrate their traditions with street fairs and other festivities on Cinco de Mayo (May 5). Ethnic restaurants abound in
many American cities. President John F. Kennedy, himself the grandson of Irish immigrants, summed up this blend of the
old and the new when he called America "a society of immigrants, each of whom had begun life anew, on an equal
footing. This is the secret of America: a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new
frontiers...."
Pluralism
In the social sciences, pluralism is a framework of interaction in which groups show sufficient respect and tolerance of
each other, that they fruitfully coexist and interact without conflict or assimilation.
Pluralism is arguably one of the most important features of modern societies and social groups, and may be a key driver
of progress in science, society and economic development.
13