LITR 5731 Seminar American Multicultural Literature: Immigrant UHCL summer 2006 sample student midterm answers: web review

Mexican-Americans, the “ambivalent minority,” also find themselves in this last group, caught between the American Dream and the American Nightmare. Since Mexico at one time holds much of what is today America, Mexican-Americans sometimes have difficulty reconciling their feelings of patriotism for their homeland with those of their newly-adopted country. In Nash Candelaria’s short story El Patron, Tito turns his back on his father’s beliefs, defying him by refusing to register for the draft. Tito bases his decision to do so on the principle of the matter—Tito believes that his social conscience takes precedence over one’s patriotic duty to any country. Tito’s father views this defiance as an insult, since El Señor Martinez has embraced this country as his own—total assimilation. Tito typifies the ambivalent minority, however, because although he embraces some aspects of American culture—he does enjoy eating at fast food restaurants—he abhors other facets of American culture, such as its meddling in other country’s affairs—perhaps viewing this as another incarnation of the country’s earlier policy of Manifest Destiny, now extended globally. Although many of the immigrant cultures are structured along the lines of the “extended family” concept, many will not embrace their “Uncle Sam” when he comes to visit their own country.

When I began writing about the New World Immigrants in my essay I nearly hijacked this idea, planning to add on to it a little bit. But as I was writing it I could help but be reminded how American it is to defy the government and how much this idea differed from the “el patron” idea of absolute fealty to one’s leaders. Though I think this is well thought out and I like the way this person described America’s meddling in other countries as parallel to Manifest Destiny that took land away from Mexico, I disagree that Tito is an ambivalent minority. I think the struggle lies with his father coming to terms with the American philosophy of democracy, that when a government is wrong it is the people’s duty to make a change.

Moving from unwilling to willing participants in the American Immigrant Narrative, one discovers a recurring theme—a belief in the American Dream, despite the fact that this dream sometimes borders on becoming the American Nightmare, the luster of that pot of gold the adventuresome immigrant seeks having become somewhat tarnished. The “social contract” between these willing participants and America differs, however, from that of the unwilling participants, in that the willing participants come of their own volition to gain freedom, be it freedom from political oppression or freedom from economic disadvantage. One common means for escaping those fetters is through education, as both Anzia Yezierska’s Soap and Water and Nicholasa Mohr’s The English Lesson illustrate, although both short stories explore other issues as well. Soap and Water tells of one immigrant’s having sacrificed years of her life to obtain an education, only to be judged unfit to be a teacher by Dean Whiteside (the name alone should signal the reader that the dominant culture “makes the rules”) based on the immigrant woman’s unkempt appearance. The narrator cannot reconcile her feelings of disappointment at the injustice that has been thrust upon her, and believes the American Dream has become the American Nightmare.

Though I did not think Yezierska experienced the American Nightmare, this paragraph is where I first got the idea of the difference in social contracts between immigrants and minorities. This instance in “Soap and Water” demonstrates less the American Nightmare as experienced by the minorities, and more the idea of a misconception of the American Dream. There is the injustice and the narrator is nearly completely disillusioned by the idea of the American Dream, however, I believe that she makes an intentional point of redemption in the end and holds on to that idea of hope, which is still a part of the American Dream.

Elsewhere, in Baldwin’s No Name in the Street, the narrator’s resistance to conformity and assimilation surfaces in his political and social activism. Essentially failed by a “barbarous” system viewed as the betrayer, the narrator recognizes that the ultimate force for change comes from within and thus begins a journey, a crusade, for the betterment of his people. In the process, as he climbs the social ladder, he interacts with the DC, using the system to serve his purpose but subsequently experiencing a separation from his roots and a growing sense of guilt. Ironically, his success serves to alienate him from the people who are at the root of his cause, a minority group already marginalized.

This was another one thought that I thought interesting. In the excerpt from No Name in the Street it’s difficult to tell exactly where Baldwin and his friend stand in relation to the minority culture. Both do seem like they live in the periphery of what is the assumed African-American culture. Baldwin adopting a life style not dissimilar to the dominant culture, with his limousines, his suits, etc. However, he still adopts his culture’s attitude toward the dominant culture, still writing and fighting for the dream of equality. And he achieves this equality for himself. As I said in my essay, equality comes first, then the success. The contrast is made with his friend, who is almost made out as obsequious toward the dominant culture and their reasons for going to war.