The early 20th Century’s perception toward the effect of unifying people of different whereabouts is hostile. Though part of this defensiveness is rooted in the love of the country, it defends with predetermined exceptions. Not all theorists of immigration efforts are withdrawn from a successful union. Though America still stands as nation built by natives and the naturalized, few thought it possible a hundred years ago.
British playwright Israel Zangwill crafted a play called The Melting Pot (1916) where, with esteem and passion, principal characters enjoy the concept of amalgamated people. There is pride in the act, and it is as a golden mission, an approval under god. The given situation is labeled as “His Crucible” (Zangwill The Melting Pot), as in a decree acknowledging the natural resistance of cultural differences charge, that is overcome. Zangwill’s example are specifically the Jew and Gentile. Both are under God, but show organized appreciation differently. Given the play’s theme, it is Anti-restrictionist for exceeding racism amongst different ethnicities. More importantly, the coming together is intended to tolerate their differences and have allowances. Together, the interaction overtime will downgrade the frequency of racism.
How various immigrants are to be treated is another matter. American, Horace Kallen, asserts the skepticism by highlighting how placing two different subjects in a shared environment will not convince either to coexist harmoniously. Kallen uses the direction and exactness of orchestrated music to define how and when a scenario of Zangwill’s melting pot could ever occur. Kallen says “the unison to be agreed cannot be the unison of ethnic types” (Kallen “Democracry versus Melting Pot”) because someone has to dominate, as the other submits. Successfully-accepting the immigrants cannot be unrehearsed, it has to be anticipated well planed and then reassembled. With this is mind, I think of Kallen’s argument as Restrictionist. He believes in moderation, rather 1915’s current process of being between compromising earned democracy know-how for an optimistically-unyielding yet classless society.
An extension toward impractical harmony concept is provided by American, Grace Abbott. Abbott, a director of the Immigrations’ Protection League in 1921, speaks on the responsibility of accepting the immigrant. Her declaration is that the immigrant can never be a resourceful commodity. Her Restrictionism comes from a racists’ determination. She gives credit to the government for doing its best for everyone to hold hands but the practice lacks of efficiency. The hurdles involves everyday occurrences where some are more troubled than others, and at heart the immigrant will not have the ability to succeed where it is readily available for the native-born. Abbott’s cynicism is practical but the logic relies heavily on there being an actual American Race. Not only does this purebred American have the inconvenience to be frustrated with the new immigrant, but it is severely endangered. The American pool will be diluted, or specifically be “destroyed by the absorption” (Abbott “Immigration Adjustment”) of allowing more ethnicities wherein. She appeals to it as a plague rather than a prospect.
American, Peter Roberts, too, has his doubts and merits in immigration population, but his 1912 confidence was in Anti-restrictionism. As an Immigration Secretary, Roberts is more interested in taking down the fences than adding more hoops. He perceive the United States as a young if not vulnerable nation, and immigrants can be used to secure its future. Of course, this can only be done if the “native-born is ready to take the foreign-born in confidence and sympathy” (Roberts “The Immigration Problem”), and that is the crucial aspect, by advertising for immigrants, and naturalizing them sooner, and embracing them wholly for seamless assimilation. Roberts has the sensibility to say the ill-natured, the racism, of how society treats Immigrants will never be revoked but it can certainly be helped. This is the personality for seeing the differences. Roberts acknowledges there needing to be a hierarchy but he believes in a concept of allowances for the profitable successes.
How immigration is discussed is a matter of speaking from privilege. Though few of the Americans entertained what is inconvenient for the new Immigrant, none of them quite observed what it was and is to be established as old Immigrants, or as the descendants of naturalized immigrants. It’s not a message that any of the theorists penned in the defining what is America. Though it certainly would have muddled the line they were insistent on maintaining, it would unified them much sooner without the need of a political crucible.
Works Cited
- Roberts, Peter. “The New Immigration”. New York: the McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997. PDF.
- Kallen, Horace. “Democracy versus Melting Pot Nation.”New York: the McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997. PDF.
- Abbott, Grace. “Immigration Adjustment”. the McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997. PDF.
- Zangwill, Israel. The Melting Pot. the McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997. PDF.
