Katie Vitek

The Evolution of Identity: Methods of Assimilation and their Effect on Identity

            My research on the settlers at Jamestown for my first post developed an interest in Native American assimilation. For my second post, I decided to research the history of Native Americans after Jamestown into present day, focusing on how they either assimilated or were forced to assimilate. My first source described historical experiences of Native Americans, continually referencing the effects these experiences have had on tribal identity. It evoked questions of how identity is formed for immigrants and minorities. Because this is such an ambiguous topic, I decided to focus on the Native American experience as a method of investigating the elusive immigrant identity. My hope was that comparing the two would lend insight into both. My research question evolved into: How do immigrant and minority groups define themselves against the dominant culture’s definition of them?

            I began my search at a PBS web page called Indian Country Diaries that gives a history of the many paths to assimilation taken by Native Americans. When European immigrants first encountered Native Americans, they claimed a “right of discovery,” meaning that they had a right to possess the land because they had found it. They believed that Native Americans were not using the land to its full potential and that leaving the land to them was like leaving it to wilderness. Therefore, the Europeans believed that they were doing what was best because they knew better than the Native Americans. The conflict over land ownership led to questions about sovereignty in the 1770s, which are still being dealt with today. By the 1870s, Indian reform groups were gaining power and sympathy in trying to convince Americans that the right of discovery was unfair. The dominant culture obviously wanted to overpower this view. They hoped to eliminate the need for questioning sovereignty through assimilation. If they could convince the tribes to see themselves as Americans, there would only be one group of people living on the land and, therefore, nothing to fight about. One of their primary methods for making this happen was boarding schools. “American” schooling began in the 1860s with day schools near reservations. Soon these became reservation boarding schools, and before long they evolved into full boarding schools away from reservations.  The schools adapted because the students were not letting go of their Indian heritage. The idea was that getting the students farther from their homes would help to make them forget their old identities and assume new American identities. Foremost in this program was the teaching of English and Christianity. Students were forbidden to speak their native languages and kept so busy with military style schedules that it was hoped they would not have time to discuss or even think about their native beliefs.

            A more recent initiative was the Urban Indian Relocation Program in 1952. This was created in response to poverty in rural areas that resulted from World War II, which was affecting Native Americans more harshly than other groups. The program offered Native Americans a small amount of money, temporary housing, and counseling in finding employment.  Not all of the relocatees found work, however, and many who did ended up working low-end jobs that were not much of an improvement over their lives as farmers.  These conditions may have contributed to the growing alcoholism among Native Americans. It was also common for Native Americans to get in trouble for drinking in public because they were used to doing so on their reservations. As much as the government hoped for assimilation, the clash between cultures continued to cause problems. Many Native Americans ultimately returned to their reservations, but the program had already had a powerful impact on Native American identity. Between 1950 and 1980, it is estimated that 750,000 Native Americans moved to cities. In looking for friendship, many relocatees found Indians from other tribes and inter-tribal marriage increased. The next generation was one of split-identity, more so than any that had come before it. The general affect of boarding schools and relocation was a distancing of Native Americans from their homes and traditions. Such drastic changes forced Native Americans to adapt, and in so doing lessened the unity of tribal identity. Different levels of assimilation meant that members of the same tribe did not necessarily have as much in common as they once did. These programs were the beginning of a sort of cultural diaspora that had a profound effect on Native American identity. (*Note: For the purposes of my research I have focused on boarding schools and urban relocation. However, a more complete picture of the Native American assimilation experience much certainly consider forced relocation and genocide as well a more in-depth political look at sovereignty and blood quantum.)

            Today, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is working to reclaim a sustainable way of life that is true to Native American heritage. Sovereignty is promoted through support for tribal government and infrastructure. Indian history and culture is promoted in schools – a direct contrast to the old boarding schools. The BIA also provides resources for tracing Native American ancestry and oversees the granting of Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood. In many ways, they are working toward one of their mottos: “Respecting tradition…while on the path to prosperity.” As a minority group, the Native American experience with assimilation is different from that of most immigrants. Minority groups place greater value on reclaiming their heritage, whereas immigrants struggle to maintain that heritage as they adapt to life in America. In 2008, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research used census data from 1890 to 2006 to measure levels of immigrant assimilation in three categories: economic, cultural, and civic. These categories were chosen because they allow for a distinction between immigrants and U.S. natives. The index measures these categories together to account for the fact that different groups assimilate in different ways. For instance, an article discussing the index in USA today pointed out that Canadians assimilate well culturally, but not well civically because many do not seek citizenship. The study noted as one of its significant findings that many groups assimilate well economically and civically without significant cultural assimilation. That seems to be one of the most debated aspects of immigration. The dominant culture focuses on cultural assimilation while the immigrants seem more concerned with economic and civic assimilation – understandably so given that their survival depends much more on those aspects. This is similar to the Native American experience in that boarding schools and relocation were largely aimed at forcing Native Americans to “blend in” while the Native Americans were more concerned with economic survival. For them, sending children to boarding schools was a means of cooperating with the government in order to keep their land; it was not necessarily something they believed in. Likewise, many relocated in order to support their families, not because of any appeal of city-living.

            It is important to note that assimilation is defined by the dominant culture. The government decided which aspects of Native American culture “needed” to be eliminated. Also, members of the dominant culture who primarily fund and conduct studies such as the assimilation index decide which categories to study. In a society as diverse as ours, I would argue that it is impossible to truly measure assimilation because we are not all the same people. A person’s ability to blend in is not a defining feature of who she is or how she identifies herself. My goal in this research was to compare definitions of immigrant and minority groups as seen through their own eyes and the eyes of the dominant culture. The key difference I have found is between cultural assimilation and economic and civic assimilation. I believe the dominant culture defines assimilation through a cultural lens whereas immigrants and minorities work more toward economic and civic assimilation. Based on our class readings, I would say that for immigrant and minority groups, cultural assimilation seems to be a means to an end – a survival mechanism more than a desire. Certainly, everyone wants to feel that they are accepted. Unfortunately, it seems that some members of these groups crave acceptance as an alternative to racism and discrimination instead of as the result of truly identifying with their peers. If the Native American assimilation experience is to be used as a model for immigrant assimilation, then it is clear that in order for assimilation to be a positive endeavor, the motives behind it must evolve.

Works Cited

Bureau of Indian Affairs. U.S. Department of the Interior. http://www.bia.gov/index.htm

“Indian Country Diaries” http://www.pbs.org/indiancountry/history/relocate.html

Nasser, Haya El. “Study: Some Immigrants Assimilate Faster.” USA Today. 13 May 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-13-assimilation_N.htm

Vigdor, Jacob L. “Civic Report 53: Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States.” Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. May 2008. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm