Kristen Bird

Dominant Culture Dilutes

An idealist’s view of America’s dominant culture would propound the belief in the democratic system, a fervency proclaiming that it is comprised by the masses and that immigrants and minorities only add to the intrinsic value.  In my naivety, this was my first hypothesis.  The optimistic tendency to hope for a true and pure democracy formed this ideal.  However, upon further examination of the culture – despite its restless squirming under the interrogation lights – the elusive qualities became clearer and the haziness of the dominant culture gave way to a few concrete observations including the characteristics of blankness, dominance and exclusivity.

To even begin understanding the dominant culture, it is necessary to research the origin of the culture.  Much of this may be found in William Bradford’s “Of Plymouth Plantation.”  Approximately one hundred English natives traveled to American after a stint of several years in the Netherlands’ unacceptable culture.  Their primary concern had become that their children were assimilating to the Low Countries “free” culture, so rather than return to the religious oppression in England, they chose to start over in a new land, unconsciously vowing to bring their own religious, educational, and governmental practices with them rather than assimilate.  This national migration was one that some writers, including Cotton Mather, often directly compared to the Jewish exodus from Egypt to Canaan in the Old Testament.  Bradford resisted this as a conscious comparison, but it is striking to note the large amount of Old Testament references he cites as compared to the small number of New Testament early church references, which the Puritans claimed to be attempting to imitate.

The early beginnings of the dominant culture set a precedent for blankness, or an unmarked quality.  A white culture, with a strict faith and plain clothing, homes and food first settled the nation.  And immediately, the Native Indians were ironically viewed as the intruder, as the outsider because of their savage practices.  Bradford, in speaking of an Indian man named Miantonomo says he “sought privately and by treachery, according to the Indian manner, to make him away by hiring some to kill him.” (OPP 367 italics mine)  All Indians were lumped together as being a marked people – marked primarily by their culture and indirectly by the color of their skin.  This was true unless the individual could benefit the chosen ones of the unmarked culture, as in the case of Squanto. . . .

            The elusiveness of the dominant culture caused by the urge to constantly move forward leaves the door wide open for further study.  But regardless of the number of characteristics found, the question still remains: Who establishes the dominant culture and keeps it necessarily moving forward today?  It seems from the evidence stated previously that the dominant culture was started by those of higher social structure with power, but is propagated and continued by the masses today.  The government, economic and even pop culture leaders seem to contribute new elements to the broad spectrum of the dominant culture, but the middle class allows it to continue through its acceptance, whether consciously or unconsciously.  The hope is that immigrants might add a bit of spice and variety to this pervasive element.  But a “bit” of spice is all that is allowed because the nature of the dominant culture is to force blandness and dilute any other taste. . . .