|
2018 Midterm1
(assignment) |
LITR 4340
American Immigrant Literature Model Assignments |
|
Tanner House
Minority Experience vs Immigrant Experience
The texts we have covered so far can be split into two categories of
minority narrative or immigrant narrative. The chief difference between these
two narratives is essentially that the minority narrative entails acculturation
while the immigrant narrative entails assimilation. When we consider the
immigrant narrative as a representation of the immigrant experience in the
United States of America, it is necessary to recognize this experience is
foundational to the American identity. Naturally, a free state which supports
the ideologies of liberty is going to attract people from virtually every
cultural or ethnic background. The immigrant narrative is built on the idea of
voluntarily leaving one’s home and setting out to make a better life for oneself
in some land of greater opportunity. This narrative is very much in line with
the heroic foundations of the American mythology. In this land of opportunity,
we can be whoever we want, and what we achieve is up to us. The immigrant
narrative is deeply rooted in the belief in the myth of the “American Dream”.
The minority narrative, while also concerned with exploring how the
non-dominant group engages and co-exists with the dominant group, the minority
narrative is involuntary in nature. For the immigrant, arrival and assimilation
into the dominant culture is typically a conscious choice. This has typically
not been the case for the minority. There is a historical precedent that states
that the involuntary contact experienced by some of the primary minority groups
in the United States has led to the active oppression of these groups in modern
America. The idea is that these groups, although they were eventually
emancipated, are left “Voiceless and choice less” ad are such being exploited
and taken advantage of. If the immigrant narrative is typically a story of
unifying or cohesion, the minority narrative is often a story of resistance.
The minority narratives we have covered have been primarily limited to
two groups: African Americans and Native Americans. I find the Native American
narrative to be very interesting, as the history and circumstances surrounding
that ethnic and cultural group are so unlike any other. One of the key elements
of the minority narrative is the idea of resistance to the dominant culture, and
this concept is present in the texts “American Horse”, “The Man to Send Rain
Clouds”, and “Gussuk”. “American Horse” entails both the Native American
resistance to acculturating to the dominant culture and the dominant culture’s
assumption that its beliefs and practices are superior or even desirable to the
minority culture. A white social worker patting herself on the back and stroking
her own ego for ripping a child away from his loving family is a disturbing
image, but one that is very much in line with the minority experience.
Similarly, the presence of a white priest performing Christian burial rights at
the funeral of a Native American man in “The Man to Send Rain Clouds” implies a
desecration of the Native American burial ceremony and also the destruction of
the Native American ethnic identity. It is one thing for the outsider to be
present at the ceremony and another thing entirely for him to be a participant.
Whereas the minority narrative has been concerned with acculturation, the
immigrant narrative deals mostly with assimilation. The idea is essentially that
when immigrant groups come to the United States they experience a tremendous
amount of pressure to sort of “Americanize” their identities so that they can
better coexist and cooperate with the dominant culture. What’s interesting about
assimilation is that while it entails one group compromising a part of its
original identity to better fit into the scope of another, there is no
implication or assumption of change on the part of the dominant group. Whereas
it could be a symbiotic union it instead becomes this sort of perverse
consumption. The non-dominant group is too easily forced to sort of pick and
choose the facets of their identity that the dominant group finds easily
digestible while also being forced to discard the things that the dominant
culture will not accept.
Something I found very interesting that could very much be read as an indictment
of this practice was the text Sandals in
the Snow. What struck me was how similar the narrative of the Ihedigbo boys’
childhood was to that of my own. Riding bikes and playing sports with all of the
neighborhood kids seems to me to be something uniquely American, and it is an
experience that transcends any sort of ethnic or racial identities. Here we find
one of the few examples of assimilation working in both directions, and it is an
overwhelmingly positive experience for all involved. Unity has created a new
identity stronger than either of the individual ones that preceded it could ever
be, and this is an endorsement of the foundational idea that this country was
built upon, ideas which have since been perverted by institutions, interest
groups, and sociopaths.
Unfortunately, the Ihedigbo narrative seems to be the exception and not
the rule. Assimilation too often pressures aspects of identity that should be
preserved to be cast aside for the
sake of being accepted by a dominant culture that is built on and centered
around materialistic consumerism. This is made clear through the poetry aspects
of the course. Pat Mora’s “Immigrants” is full of imagery that reflects this
sentiment. She writes of immigrants “wrapping their babies in American flags”,
giving them American toys and white names, and hoping beyond hope that their
children will be accepted by the dominant culture. They are surrendering a part
of the children’s heritage and identity for the sake of acceptance, and it is an
acceptance that often can never be truly realized.
The
image of this sort of bastardized assimilation is reflected in Sandra Cisneros’
“Barbie-Q”. The little girls have their Barbie dolls and can ritualistically
recite all of the clothes and accessories they want, but the dolls were also
bought in a flea market after being stolen from a burning toy store. Because of
this, the dolls are all marked with some sort of mutation or imperfection, and
here Cisneros is being critical of the forces of assimilation. While the dolls
can appear to be normal at first glance, upon further inspection we realize that
they can never truly be a part of the heteronormative experience, as the
heteronormative experience which they stand for is not even one that should be
idealized. It is shallow and materialistic, and adhering to it often destroys or
suppresses more admirable traits.
The
most interesting thing about these narratives is how they relate to and work
with one another. Despite their distinct qualities, they are both narratives
that seek to outline the differences in how non-dominant groups navigate both
each other and the dominant culture. It is a mistake to believe that these two
distinct narratives completely align, but they do both detail the process of the
interaction between dominant and non-dominant. While there is certainly
resistance in both narratives, they seem to be circling around this idea that
some sort of assimilation or unification, if not always perfect, or even wanted,
is inevitable. This idea is very in line with the historical context and social
foundation of the United States of America. The state was created by immigrants
and built on the social foundations of liberty and equality, and this seems like
a pretty natural progression of these ideas.
When
comparing the differences between our conceptions of the minority experience in
the United States of America and the immigrant experience in the United States
of America, it is necessary to define exactly what those two terms mean.
According to the course site, the immigrant experience is primarily defined by
its voluntary nature, meaning that the groups which we refer to as immigrants
have chosen to come to and live in the United States, whereas the minority group
is defined as basically any group of people who fall outside of the
heteronormative, dominant culture that is white America. Geopolitical discourse
has led to the necessity of the designation of an immigrant, but I need to take
a moment here to challenge the designation of minority. While I understand that
my perspective is one that comes from a place of tremendous privilege, as I am
someone who has fallen squarely in the middle of the heteronormative, dominant
culture, I believe that the classification of minority is currently being used
as an arbitrary designation that was invented and then perpetuated by political
institutions of power to oppress people and ensure that the American populace
remains divided, thus ensuring that they are easier to control.
Identity politics are the invention of one of the most corrupt social
institutions that the world has ever seen, and their normalization has allowed
institutions of power to subvert and destroy most of the bonds which make us all
human. Essentially, the minority designation was invented to ensure that we all
constantly remain hyper aware of our differences, thus enabling the institutions
of social power to if not entirely erase, then at least greatly subvert, the
things that make us all similar. Identity is of paramount importance to the
individual, and it should be maintained and preserved, but when it is being
coopted and subverted by institutions of power to divide and oppress then
something must be done.
Humanity is universal. It is the great equalizer, the umbrella under which we
should all be able to realize that we are brothers and sisters. Division, which
is the ultimate goal of an institution if power, is the antithesis of humanity.
It goes against the very nature of our species. Humanity survived, and thrived,
through cooperation. We became the apex species of what we understand our
existence to be because we worked together to overcome each and every obstacle
that nature placed in our way. Unity is written directly into our genetic code,
it is a fundamental aspect of our biology. These arbitrary designations of
majority/minority undermine our very existence.
With
this understanding in mind, I believe that the dominant culture must be
destroyed. The conception of the dominant culture is something that has allowed
this corrupt, oppressive institution of power to remain in place and thrive. It
is a tool of the institution. Institutions of power must be challenged by the
people who reside within them. The will of the institution is not the will of
the individual, but institutional control has ensured the oppression of the
individual. The dominant culture must be destroyed because it is an extension of
this institution, and to support institutional power as it currently exists is a
submission of our liberty and free will.
