The Ethic of Assimilation

The expectation that immigrants to the U.S. assimilate to American culture is oft-expressed, both by those advocating for more immigration and those calling for less.

But what does it mean to assimilate to American culture?  What constitutes "American" culture?  And to what extent is the expectation of assimilation a reasonable one?

In the popular YouTube video "Press One for English," singer/songwriter Kay Rivoli expresses her frustration at not being able to read signs in her native United States, and asks "why must I press one for English when it's the language of this land."  Interposed with shots of Rivoli and her husband kicking out the jams in what appears to be suburban Florida are sepia photos of groups of immigrants from the early 20^th century-Chinese, Russians, Italians-all learning English.  The implication is that back then, in the days of Ellis Island, immigrants came knowing they would have to learn English and assimilate to American culture, which they did without complaint.  Many an internet commenter has fondly recalled his or her grandparents, who came and promptly learned English.

Many recent migrants and contemporary migrant advocates have also endorsed the assimilationist ethic.  The Pew Hispanic Center released a study in 2007 showing that recent Spanish-speaking immigrants are, in fact, assimilating at rates similar to those of past eras.  Some migrant advocates claim recent immigrants to the U.S. want to be as American as anyone else.  In the mass migrant rights marches of 2006, negative initial coverage of Mexican flags resulted in a sea of U.S. flags at subsequent marches.

But the nostalgic history of earlier immigrants to the U.S. unreservedly embracing American culture is incomplete.

In his book Emigrant Nation, Mark Choate recounts in careful detail the network of language and cultural societies sponsored and cultivated by Italian consulates in the U.S. in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.  (One of them still exists, in much-diminished form, at the Catholic migrant assistance organization in Brooklyn, NY, where I worked until recently.)  These organizations, which included the Dante Alighieri Society (an organization designed to preserve Italian language and culture) and Italian Chambers of Commerce Abroad were the product of a calculated effort by the Italian government to promote its national "brand" abroad to increase the influence and prestige of the Italian state.  As a result of Italy's efforts, roughly 100,000 immigrants of Italian descent-many of them naturalized U.S. citizens-returned to fight for la madre patria in World War One.

If Italians during this time didn't feel as tightly bound to American culture or government as their descendants sometimes imagine, the feeling was often mutual.

President Woodrow Wilson's anti-Italian sentiment was widely shared.  He once said (Choate 214):

[N]ow there came multitudes of men of the lowest class from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort of Hungary and Poland, men out of the ranks where there was neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence; and they came in numbers which increased from year to year, as if the countries of the south of Europe were disburdening themselves of the more sordid and hapless elements of their population, the men whose standards of life and of work were such as American workmen had never dreamed of hitherto.

Note the racial, categorical grounds on which his comments are based, typical of efforts to subjugate ethnic groups throughout U.S. history.  Even today.

Italy and the U.S. were allies in WWI-not so in the Second World War, when the U.S. government detained many Italian and German immigrants.

The nostalgic view many Americans have today of huddled masses, eager to cast off the chains of the corrupt Old World and embrace American ideals, is not entirely accurate.  About half of all Italian immigrants to the U.S. ended up returning to Italy. Capitalizing on 30 years of high levels of immigration through Ellis Island, restrictionists prevailed as the Immigration Act of 1924 was enacted, instituting a system of national quotas drastically restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe.  Native-born Americans took a hard look at Ellis Island, with its inspiring stories of hardship, deprivation, and sacrifice, said, "Enough is enough!" and shut the door to immigrants for 40 years.

If some groups have been found insufficiently assimilated, to what were they expected to assimilate?  What counts as "American culture"?

From about 1880 to 1943, Chinese-born immigrants could not naturalize.  During WWII, President Roosevelt ordered tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans interned or deported.  Many of the detainees lost homes and jobs.  During those periods, people of certain ethnicities or nationalities were widely reviled in the popular press.

By national consensus, Chinese represented a "yellow menace" in 1890, Italians were not "good Americans" in 1910, and Japanese-even those born in the U.S.!-were considered a mortal threat to national security in 1943.  Those Americans may have been as committed as anyone to the ideals of individual liberty and representative democracy, but they were prima facie ineligible to participate in American culture because of their ethnicity or nationality. It didn't matter how tightly they adhered to the principles and values outlined in the Constitution or how well they honored the oath of allegiance many swore in order to become naturalized citizens--the result was the same.

For some, this is still true today.

What is "American culture," then?  Is it simply a matter of professing loyalty to country and its ideals?  This has not been enough for many.  Is it speaking English without an accent?  Does it mean sending sons and daughters to fight in the Middle East?  Does this represent American culture?  What about this?

If American culture is this difficult to pin down, then what does it mean to assimilate to it?

For me, the term "American values" is a question rather than an answer.  Attempts to distill a national culture or define the national identity have always been contested and contentious.  Furthermore, is there something coherent and quantifiable that differentiates a conscientious American from a conscientious Canadian, German, or Brit?  If so, what is it?  Even if there is some practical value to an assimilationist ethic, what principles do we derive from this national culture, and how are they uniquely American?

Some people argue that when immigrants are asked to assimilate, it is only necessary to sign on to certain American ideological tenets: freedom, self-reliance, and democracy.  I think that internment of loyal U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, some of whom had sons fighting for the U.S. against Japan during the war, goes a long way toward showing that "ideological assimilation" has not been sufficient in time of war in this country.  For most of this country's history, it hasn't been enough to sign on to the freedom agenda (and sometimes I wonder how one goes about doing that); too often, having light skin and the right accent was the only way to truly assimilate.