"how the dominant culture came to be and what the criteria are to belong to it"

Before taking this class, the significance of being member of the dominant culture had never really occurred to me.  Why am I a member of it and what are the ramifications?   First, we must consider what constitutes the dominant culture in the United States today.  To be part of the dominant culture you must assimilate to the monotheistic, white, middle-class, English speaking majority. One must be “unmarked,” or not stand out in any way as “different.”  The narratives of the Exodus story from the Bible, Of Plymouth Plantation, and the Jewish, Bread Givers, can bring enlightenment to the studious reader in explaining how the dominant culture came to be and what the criteria are to belong to it.

The Exodus narrative from the Bible’s Old Testament explains the first “national migration” by the ancient Jews.  Their migration, led by Moses, from Egypt to Canaan was done for oppressive and religious reasons (not leaving God out, of course). They immigrated as a group, unlike most modern day immigrants, and resisted change through assimilation by retaining their own language and shunning intermarriage.  After their “national migration” they arrived in the new land with religious fervor resulting is the destruction of the existing infrastructure as well as any false idols or images of God.  They became more progressive in their ways with writing and books, eschewing stone tablets.  These original immigrants took on a plain style that was devoid of ornaments which left them with an “unmarked” appearance compared with the Cannanites who were decidedly “marked.”  They were looking for a better life and a new dream in the “land flowing with milk and honey”(Exodus 3:8).  They set the work ethic of the dominant culture with “[s]ix days shalt thou labor . . .”(Exodus 20:9).    They traveled with the group consisting of traditional, extended families.  Family expectations are further made clear in the Ten Commandments, “[h]onor thy father and mother . . .”(Exodus 20:12).  For their obedience, “God remembered covenant . . .”(Exodus 1:24), the original social contract.  Therefore, the immigrating Jews set themselves up as and became the dominant culture in their new land.  A large group is more likely to resist assimilation because they will not need to look for marriage partners outside of their group, hence change through intermarriage is not necessary. Today, an immigrant will typically assimilate and “lose” their original ethnic identity within 1 – 3 generations.  Since the ancient Jews were the original dominant culture, there would be no assimilation necessary for their children or grandchildren.

            Consciously following the example of the ancient Jews, were the religiously oppressed Pilgrims.  They made their journey in a group, therefore making a “national migration.” First they moved from England for religious reasons and then from Holland to America when their children, distressingly for the parents, began to assimilate to the Holland culture.  Like the ancient Jews before them, they came to America with no intention of assimilating to the indigenous Indian people.  Unlike the ancient Jews before them, they traveled mostly in nuclear family groups.  Instead of Moses, the Pilgrims were led by their own William Bradford, who would later record their recent history.   The typology between the two groups is quite marked, whether done consciously or unconsciously.  Beyond the aforementioned examples, it seems through the writings of Bradford, that the Pilgrims actually set out to follow the example of the Exodus story.  Scripture is quoted and referred to often in Of Plymouth Plantation.  Bradford quotes from Hebrews when he writes, “. . . but they knew they were pilgrims, and looked not on those things, but life up their eyes to the heavens, their dearest country, and quieted spirits”(50), which serves as an example of their “simple truth” in writing.  The Pilgrims will also share in the belief of a monotheistic, unrepresented God, as well as an “unmarked” style of dress and food.    On religious terms as well as work ethic, the Pilgrims would become early models for the “Protestant Work Ethic” that would become the forerunner of modern Capitalism.   They made their covenant through the Mayflower Compact, the document stated, “. . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together . . .” (84), as the ancient Jews had before them.  In short, the Pilgrims would become the dominant culture in America that all future immigrants would find themselves assimilating to. They set the standard for what is now described as “WASP,” or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture that still dominates the United States in the year 2006.  The WASP dominant culture retains control in the United States even today through Capitalism and a strong Protestant Work Ethic.

            Joining the dominant culture described as “WASP” can be difficult if not impossible by being “marked” as different.  This became evident to me while reading,  Bread Givers, by Anzia Yezierska.  I found the introduction to the book, which detailed Ms. Yezierska’s life, to be as fascinating as the book.  She immigrated to America during the 3^rd wave of immigration 1890-1924, which consisted of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.  She was an early fighter of feminist issues, wanting a family and her career as a writer.  Bread Givers takes a different outlook than the Exodus story or Pilgrims Plantation because these two stories chronicle the making of a dominant culture.  The main character in Bread Givers, Sarah, is trying to retain her “markedness” while joining the dominant culture so she can achieve her version of the “American Dream.”  She relates that, “. . . when I was paid a dollar, I felt the riches of America in my hand”(189).  Like the Pilgrims, she traveled with her nuclear family to the United States. The difference between Sarah and the ancient Jews and the Pilgrims is she moved with her family but not a large migration group.  Like the two earlier groups of people, the Jewish Americans resisted assimilation and intermarriage during the time of her writing, until recent decades.  Anzia relates her character, Sarah, and her new beginnings to a Pilgrim when she writes “I felt like Columbus, like the Pilgrim fathers . . .”(209).  Sarah sees the unmarked, dominant culture as “. . . plain beautifulness, no show-off; cleanliness . . .”(212) and “. . . graceful quietness . . . more style in its plainness than the richest velvet. . .”(239).   She struggles with her father who, as a first generation immigrant, retains his marked appearance and is completely resistant to change. This is typical in the assimilation process beginning with the second or third generation immigrant.  She relates that “[i]n a world where all is changed, he alone remains unchanged . . .”(295).  On a feminist level, Sarah must move away from her Father as oppressor.   Sometimes, the child of a first generation immigrant must make a “second immigration” away from her ethnic enclave for assimilation and dream achievement purposes.  In a country dominated by the “WASP,” as a Jewish American she must fight against anti-Semitism for being different.  However, history has proven the Jews to be very economically successful in the USA without giving up their ethnic identity.

            The three texts piece together a history of the dominant culture in a way I had never considered before.  The depth of fight in people looking for a new life began with the ancient Jews, moved through the Pilgrims as well numerous other immigrating and minority groups.  I would like to hope that classes like “Immigrant Literature” would lead to more acceptances of those immigrants and minorities that are “marked” and not a member of the dominant culture.  However, the reality is probably not quite as optimistic. 

The dominant culture usually wants to escape from those that are different or unpleasant and somehow, thought beneath them.  The term, “vertical immigration” refers to a new migration of people within the United States that is more concerned with technology and economics than classic nationality immigration issues.  This is explained in narrative form in the excerpt read in class from the story, Hunting Mr. Heartbreak, by Jonathan Raban.  He relates his story through the “street people” and the “air people” in New York City.  “Street people” is the current term for the beggars and bums while the “air people” are those that escape the unpleasantness of the city by living above it all in high rise homes.  Raban relates “[f]ar down in the uninhabitable city there were stores that were just telephone numbers to the Air People; there things were counted, parceled, charged and posted up, via guards and elevators, like so many messages to another world”(353).  Even though a lottery sign read, “all you need is a dollar and a dream”(356), the truth is, the world will remain one of the “haves” and the “have nots,” because of the simple fact that we do not now, or will we ever, live in a utopian world here on earth, where all would have to be equal, fair and beautiful.  [JLS]