As I was reading a section of my independent semantics book that seemed closely related to out ongoing discussion of a national language, I had some questions that I thought I would just put out there.
In the history of American immigration some groups have been more inclined to quickly learn American customs and assimilate to American society. This has been most clearly seen with the readiness that these groups learn or attempt to learn English. For example, virtually all Dutch and Swedish immigrants that arrived in the United States during the 19C learned English within two generations. Often even those straight off the boat would try to learn English quickly after their arrival. During the rush of immigration from Germany during the same time period however, the percentage of those who learned English within the first three generations was considerably lower and many German immigrants resisted governmental attempts to accelerate the process. Many Germans seemed either unable or unwilling to assimilate to American culture. Additionally, Native Americans forced into boarding schools and assimilation programs during the 1870's in particular strongly resisted learning English. So my first question is this, why is it that some groups seem more willing to learn English and give up (as many of the 2nd/3rd generation immigrants did) the language of their ancestors? Are groups more willing to assimilate if they are not encouraged or, in the case of the Native Americans, forced to do so? Also, is assimilation the primary goal? When we say that we want to spread unity and patriotism, are we saying we want to do so by eliminating, or at least lessening the importance of the native cultures of these immigrants?
Sorry that this post was slightly jumbled. (Molly Dunbar)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A part of this discussion is embedded within the practices of human nature. We all want what we cannot easily obtain. We also are more motivated to commit to a task when it is not forced upon us. I understand these are generalizations, but I feel that they apply to a majority of the human race.
The immigrants who learn English due so in order to simplify life's processes. They do not necessarily erase their native tongue and cultures from their lives. If the government mandated a law in which immigrants were forbidden to speak any other language than English, they would be bound to follow a dogmatic path rather than one of peaceful assimilation.
The last question posed (When we say that we want to spread unity and patriotism, are we saying we want to do so by eliminating, or at least lessening the importance of the native cultures of these immigrants?) is a difficult one to answer. In our historical studies, we have observed both ends of the spectrum. The government wished to disassemble the seemingly "barbaric" ways of the American Indians. Yet on the other hand, the United States were somewhat thankful for the arrival of the Chinese who reading supplied cheap labor for public works.
All is dependent upon the context, is it not?
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Sam in some parts. I do agree that the context does matter at times, but I also think that it has to do with the type of people. If a person's culture is very important to them, then I do not think that it would be so easy for that person to give it up. I am not saying that these people did not care about their culture, but that they cared more about their future and current situation. Therefore, to answer another question that was proposed, that it does not matter that much whether they are being forced or encouraged to get rid of their culture.
If I'm not mistaken, the case in which German immigrants resisted assimilation had to do with their distinct culture that often clashed with that of the Americans already settled here. They had a tendency to settle in compact "colonies" and stay detached from their surroundings. Their Old World love of bier also grated against long-established New World Puritan tradition where they had chosen to settle. Nevertheless, after two or three generations, they did in fact assimilate. It has always been significantly easier for second and third (And so on) generation Americans to assimilate due to the environment in which they are raised. Even if they did grow up in more secluded environments, it is nearly impossible to avoid some extent of immersion in the "American" culture.
It isn't a matter of giving up, but rather a matter of what is natural. Once you reaching the tipping point where there are more second and third generation Americans, the need to retain fluency in one's mother language (N.B.: This isn't necessarily one and the same as one's primary language at this point!) is significantly less than the need to assimilate. Assimilation makes things easier, but it and retention of one's heritage don't have to be mutually exclusive entities.
Post a Comment