Full transcript
0:00So in the introduction I said that
0:03pluralism became seen as a problem and
0:06that it weakened uh in the 19s and 1920s
0:10as Americans began developing and in
0:13enforcing the idea of 100% Americanism.
0:17So what I want to start by doing here in
0:19the next part of lecture is describing
0:22how pluralism was changed during the
0:261890s and early 1900s. Right. Americans
0:32embracing of pluralism really gave way
0:36to a series of debates between people
0:39who supported the concept of nivism and
0:43people who supported the concept of
0:45Americanization.
0:46Right? The concept of Americanization
0:49was just very simply
0:52a progressive idea uh that
0:56um you could engineer a process through
1:01which immigrants were made into
1:03Americans. So this is a new idea, right?
1:05It's different than pluralism.
1:07Pluralists [snorts] of the 19th century
1:09had believed you naturally became
1:11American. But progressives said there
1:14are too many immigrants coming and uh
1:18there are they are too different than uh
1:21the places where Americans traditionally
1:23have come from. So we're going to have
1:24to work to Americanize or make these
1:27immigrants into American citizens.
1:31Right? Not everybody agreed with the
1:34progressives in their concepts of
1:36Americanization. nivists continued to
1:39argue that the United States should
1:41essentially close its borders or manage
1:45immigration very tightly uh so that the
1:49right sorts of people got in. Right?
1:52Nivism was not an idea that was brand
1:54new to the turn of the 20th century.
1:56Nivist debates bubbled up, you know, in
1:59the 1850s, in the late 1860s.
2:03Usually nivists had been people who saw
2:07immigrants as an economic threat. So
2:10workingclass people in Boston, in New
2:13York, in Philadelphia had expressed the
2:16idea that America should be born be for
2:21nativeorn Americans or nivists
2:24uh because of limited economic
2:27opportunity. So we tend to see nivist
2:30sentiment pop up when people are worried
2:33that immigrants are a threat to economic
2:36prosperity. So that's beginning to
2:39change a little bit. I mean the nivists
2:40of the turn of the 20th century tended
2:43to believe that immigrants were an
2:48economic threat in part because they
2:52were ethnically different. Right? They
2:54didn't believe in certain American
2:56values. the Protestant work ethic, for
2:58instance, that made the American economy
3:02what people thought it was at the turn
3:04of the 20th century. So, a a hot spot in
3:07this debate between nivists and people
3:11who were progressive and supported
3:13Americanization was the establishment of
3:15Ellis Island in 1892.
3:18The people who created Ellis Island
3:21argued to nivists that Americans could
3:25use this port of entry as a tool for
3:29managing who gets in. So
3:32if Ellis Island did its job, if we hired
3:35experts who were good at sorting the
3:38right people from the wrong people, then
3:41you could as a nation, the United States
3:44could provide opportunity, but also at
3:47the same time
3:49protect American interests by excluding
3:52the wrong kinds of people. A lot of this
3:55exclusion, however, deciding like who
3:58could and couldn't get in, wasn't really
4:00based on race. Um, it was based on ideas
4:04like class. It was based on health,
4:08right? So, for instance, one of the
4:10things that progressives argued was that
4:13people who came with um communicable
4:16diseases should be kept out and that
4:18Ellis Island would be a way to do that.
4:22Um, but you know there are a lot of
4:25holes in Ellis Island. A lot of a lot of
4:28lot of lot of problems with the way it
4:30worked. Like for instance, when you
4:32immigrated to the United States, you
4:35could get out of having to be processed
4:37in Ellis Island if you came to the
4:39United States essentially with a first
4:42class ticket. So if you had enough money
4:45to buy the best rooms on the ship, the
4:49assumption was you were safe and you
4:52could come into the United States. If
4:54you didn't have enough money, if you
4:56came in steerage or you came in third
4:58class, the idea was like you probably
5:01were a problem. You probably came sick
5:03and you needed to be, you know, kept out
5:06of the United States or or managed,
5:08right? So healthy people were rich
5:11people who didn't need to be kept out of
5:12the United States. Poor people who
5:15didn't have the right kind of work ethic
5:16were sick people who needed to be kept
5:18out. You can see the problems with this,
5:21right? Rich people spread communicable
5:24diseases just as easily as poor people
5:26do. But again, you know, this was what
5:29Ellis Island was supposed to do.
5:31supposed to help manage who immigrated
5:35into the United States so that Americans
5:37felt like people who got here were
5:40people who would be an asset to the
5:42American way of life. Now
5:46what continued to be debated was what
5:50happened to immigrants once they got in?
5:52Like how did they Americanize? How did
5:55they become Americans?
5:57And there were multiple ways of looking
6:00at this issue of Americanization or how
6:03people became American. It wasn't
6:04something everybody agreed on. For
6:06instance, one immigrant who had been in
6:10the United States for a generation or
6:11so, Israel Zangwell, wrote a play in
6:151908 called The Melting Pot. Right? In
6:18this play, Zanwell expressed the idea
6:22that people who immigrated to the United
6:26States and were given a chance to
6:29succeed in the United States went
6:31through a sort of smelting process where
6:34they were melted down into the great
6:37American population. So they they kind
6:39of quit being Russian. Zang was a was a
6:42Russian immigrant. So the melting pot in
6:44the play was about Russian immigrants,
6:47right? Uh and that these people became
6:50new Americans in the in this melting
6:52down process of of having to practice
6:55American religion, having American
6:57relationships,
6:59uh you know, pursuing American wealth.
7:01You know, the idea of the play was that
7:05the protagonist and other people like
7:08him, these Russian immigrants overcame
7:11prejudices they had back in Russia in
7:15the United States, right? In the United
7:18States, they were given the opportunity
7:19to learn more about each other because
7:21of a lack of social artifice and they
7:23they became something better. Now,
7:26something that was inherent in this play
7:28was that
7:29Zangul believed America changed too
7:33because it took on immigrants, right?
7:36That these immigrants didn't just quit
7:38being Russian. They literally changed
7:41America by adding this sort of
7:44Russianness to the melting pot. So, the
7:47idea was that like the melting pot was
7:49important because it changed immigrants,
7:50but it also changed the United States
7:53into a better place. It created a more
7:54homogeneous new America.
7:58Other people like Randph Bourne argued
8:01that the melting pot was a fallacy. He
8:03argued that that homogenization was a
8:06danger. Bourne continued to embrace sort
8:08of pluralist ideas, most notably in an
8:11essay he wrote called Transnational
8:13America in 1960.
8:17Bourne in this essay criticized
8:20Americanization. He said the problem
8:22with the melting pot and Americanization
8:25efforts was that it killed
8:27distinctiveness. He said what's made the
8:30United States great up to this point was
8:34that it gave different types of people a
8:36way to interact that different cultures
8:39and people interacted in different ways
8:42and that Americanization kind of killed
8:45off this difference and it asked people
8:47to become all alike.
8:51Bourne envisioned a more complex culture
8:55that was more cosmopolitan and
8:57democratic, right? Uh sometimes Bourne's
9:02thinking is referred to as a symphony of
9:05American society. So if you think about
9:06a a symphony, right? It's made up of
9:10strings and woodwinds and percussion.
9:12And these things remain different and
9:15distinct, right? They don't become one
9:17instrument. they remain different
9:20instrument types that make one thing
9:22that's great. Right? So this is what
9:25Bourne expressed idea that difference
9:28needed to be maintained and managed in
9:31the United States that immigrants
9:32shouldn't just become something else.
9:34They should retain some part who they
9:37had been and that Americans should be
9:39open-minded enough to to adapt to this
9:42different thinking. Now,
9:46neither one of these ideas expressed
9:49100% Americanism. Both Zangul and Bourne
9:52didn't believe in an us verse them. They
9:54didn't argue that immigrants had to
9:57adapt to an established way of life.
10:00They both argued that immigration
10:04could be something that made the United
10:06States a better place, and immigrants
10:09were positive.
10:11But they also believed America needed to
10:13change. They believed that America was
10:16becoming something different.
10:19A lot of people supported these ideas.
10:21But support for Americanization, the
10:24idea that
10:26immigrants could become an American and
10:28in the process improve the United
10:30States. Support for that idea was
10:32growing weaker in the 19s.
10:35For instance, as you'll hear in the next
10:37slide, the emergence of the Dillingham
10:40Commission undercut Americanization and
10:44seemed to confirm nivists worst fears
10:47that immigrants were a threat to the
10:51American way of life.