“Melting pot” is not originally an American self-image. Americans considered themselves Europeans and Christians. The concept of "melting pot" was coined as a term from the play "The Melting Pot" (1908) by Russian Jewish immigrant Israel Zangville, who adapted Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to the New York City setting. In the play, immigrant David Quijano, a Russian Jew, falls in love with Vera, a Russian immigrant who is, however, a Christian. Vera is an idealist and worker, David is a composer trying to create an “American symphony” glorifying his new homeland. Together they overcome the hostilities of the old world that could tear them apart. With Faith, watching the sunset gilding the Statue of Liberty, David Quijano makes a prophecy speech: “These are the lights of God around his smelter. This is the Great Melting Pot! ... Here they (immigrants) will all unite and build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God.”
The ideology of modernity in the West is becoming “multiculturalism” (the theory of “vinaigrette” or “salad cup”, which implies not the mixing of nations of cultures in a melting pot, but their mixing). The essence of the policy of multiculturalism lies in preserving the cultural characteristics of different ethnic groups. If municipal and national authorities finance educational institutions and cultural institutions, where people from other countries and their descendants can learn their native language and study the history and culture of their countries, if the wearing of folk costumes is encouraged, etc. (Germany) - this is multiculturalism. If the official policy is not specifically aimed at rapid assimilation, and is also not aimed at maintaining ethnic identity, but in general does not particularly interfere with it, it is a “melting pot.” It is the latter policy at the state level that we observe in the modern United States.
In 2006, the US population reached the 300 million mark. According to the Census Bureau, it is predicted that from 1995 to 2050 the US population will grow from 263 to 394-420 million people, but immigration to the US will remain stable at 820 thousand people. per year. Immigrants will account for 82% of the growth. Of the new 142 million, 67 million will be immigrants themselves, another 47 million will be their children, and 3 million will be their grandchildren. Population growth will be driven almost entirely by people of color.
By 2050, Latinos will make up a quarter of the total US population and will outnumber blacks, Indians and Asians combined. The number of Hispanic Americans will grow from the current 40 million to approximately 103 million. Such significant growth figures will be ensured by high birth rates (the corresponding figures for Latin Americans are 2 times higher than for their white fellow citizens) and mass immigration from Latin America, primarily from neighboring Mexico.
The proportion of Asians in the population, which is 3.5% today, will rise to 8.2% in 2050. In absolute terms, the number of Asians will triple: from 11 million in 2000 to 33 million in 2050, which will be achieved through mass immigration, mainly from China and India. The number of black Americans will almost double - from 36 million to 61 million people, but their share in the total population will increase slightly - from the current 12.7% to 14.6%.
By 2050, the white population of the United States will be in the minority due to an influx of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, a new study reports. Now every eighth resident of the United States is an immigrant. Projections for such a dramatic change in the ethnic composition of the population are due to existing trends: the white population of the United States is aging and exhibits low rates of natural increase, while the share of Hispanics, blacks and Asians is increasing due to high birth rates and immigration. It is worth listening to the opinion of some experts who do not rule out that a change in the ethnic mosaic in CIIIA could contribute to the disintegration of the United States into several states, although the likelihood of this is minimal.
The predicted changes in the face of the country reflect the situation that has already developed in California - whites ceased to be the majority there several years ago. According to the 2005 Census, whites currently make up 43% of California's population, Hispanics make up 36%, and Asians and Pacific Islanders make up 13%.
States with a predominant non-white population (Majority-minority state) have emerged - a group of second-order administrative units (states) in the United States in which the non-white population predominates (accounting for 67% of the country as a whole according to 2006 data), and a variety of racial and ethnolinguistic groups of the so-called colored population - African Americans (blacks), Latin Americans (especially Mexicans), Asians, Indians, people of mixed origin (mestizo, mulatto, etc.) Currently there are 4 such states in the country (California, New Mexico , Texas, Hawaii), as well as the territory of the District of Columbia - Washington). However, in all of them, with the exception of the District of Columbia, the white English-speaking population still retains a relative majority (plurality), since the non-white population is quite heterogeneous in its composition. In addition, non-white populations predominate in a number of US overseas dependencies: Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and American Samoa.
You should be wary of such statistics and take into account American realities: segregation of housing, education, etc. for a detailed picture. Thus, within states with a predominantly non-white population there are a large number of counties, cities and neighborhoods with a predominantly white population. However, outside of this category of states, although the population is generally white, there are significant areas of concentration of people of color, especially in cities. So, in general, in the population of million-plus cities in the United States, white people make up only 35% of the population. US Census data and current US Census Bureau statistics (2000-2010) are important. The importance of information about the states and territories with a predominant non-white population has historically been of great importance for the United States since its inception, since the overt or hidden confrontation between the white and non-white population in cultural, linguistic and religious terms reached its apogee here compared to other colonial territories of the Western Hemisphere . The persistence of a colonial mentality and powerful linguistic assimilation have influenced modern US demographic statistics, which focus primarily on race rather than people or languages. The modern market and marketing also in many ways actively support such a somewhat artificial division as a convenient way of market segmentation.
States with a predominantly non-white population tend to have a very different linguistic, religious and political picture from the country as a whole (especially the states of the Southwest), where Spanish is widely spoken, Catholicism and atheism are more widespread, rather than sectarian or semi-sectarian Protestantism , and voters disillusioned with modern government tend to favor independent candidates rather than support either of the country's two main parties (Democrats or Republicans). These states also have a whole series social problems associated with illegal immigration (the number of illegal immigrants, mainly Mexicans, according to some estimates, reaches 12 million people), the high birth rate of the non-white population, and the relatively low level of income.
Despite the fact that economic and social differences between black and white Americans are gradually disappearing, a different situation is emerging in the field of interracial marriages. In areas such as religion and place of residence, significant rapprochement has not occurred. Even today, the United States remains a highly segregated society in many ways. 90% of Americans pray primarily with members of their own race or ethnicity. In a typical American city, to ensure equal distribution of white and black residents, 64% of black residents must be relocated to other areas. Even in public schools, relationships between American teenagers are quite segregated: the average American student has 0.7 friends of a different race. However, according to the author, the most interesting indicator of the segregation of American society is interracial marriages. To analyze interracial marriage, Frayer uses statistics from 1880 to 2000. As Frayer shows, even today interracial marriages are extremely rare in the United States. Only 1% of whites, 5% of blacks and 14% of Asians decide to marry a person of a different race. Until 1967, when the US Supreme Court ruled that such bans were unconstitutional, 16 of the 50 US states still had such laws banning interracial marriage. Another interesting fact: in 1987, 35 US states prohibited white families from adopting black orphans. This ban was only eradicated in 1996, when a law was passed prohibiting such practices.
According to statistics, in 1880, marriages between whites, on the one hand, and blacks or Asians, on the other, accounted for only 0.1% of all marriages entered into by whites. Initially, white citizens preferred marriages with blacks rather than with Asians, although the trend later reversed. From 1880 to 1980s the proportion of marriages between white men and black women was less than 0.1% of the total. Since 1980, this rate began to increase and reached 0.2% by 2000. The number of marriages between black men and white women increased from 0.10% in 1970 to 0.45% in 2000. Currently, about 6% of marriages entered into African Americans contract with white women. About 2.9% of marriages of African-American women are with white Americans. Marriages between white men and Asian women were rare until 1960. However, starting in 1960, the number began to rise and by 2000 had increased tenfold, becoming the most common model of interracial marriage in the United States.
The most common type of interracial marriage in the United States is between a white man and an Asian woman. Such unions account for 20% of marriages involving Asian women in the United States and 35% of marriages involving US-born Asian women. The second and most common type of interracial marriage is between a black man and a white woman. About 6% of African American marriages are of this type. In turn, the US Census Bureau reported that in 2005 in the United States there were 422 thousand marriages in which the spouses belonged to different races (black and white). The increase in interracial marriage prompted the Census Bureau to change the questionnaire that Americans filled out during the 2000 national census. Typically, US residents were required to indicate their race; in 2000, a “multiracial” answer option was added for the first time. At that time, 2.4% of the US population (6.8 million people) said they were of mixed racial origin. Among young Americans (under 18 years of age), 4.2% were of “multiracial” origin, among older generations - 1.9%. If in 1970 only one out of every 100 children born in the United States was of multiracial origin, then in 2000 the figure was one out of every 19. In some states (for example, California) this figure is even higher - one in 10. The largest number of Americans of mixed descent in 2000 lived in the state of Hawaii (more than 24.5% of the state's population were people whose parents belonged to different races), the smallest - in Mississippi, West Virginia, Maine, Alabama and South Carolina (less than 1%) .
According to sociologists at Stanford University, in 2005, of the 59 million married couples existing in the United States, 7% consisted of spouses of different skin colors. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that interracial families are more likely to break up than those in which both spouses are of the same race. The risk of divorce for a “multi-colored” family that has existed for 10 years is 41%, for a “monoracial” couple - 31%. The most famous are interracial families formed by celebrities. For example, director and actor Woody Allen is married to an Asian woman, actor Robert De Niro is married to an African-American woman, former US Secretary of Defense (in the Bill Clinton Administration) William Cohen is married to a black woman. In turn, US President Barack Obama, golfer Tiger Woods, and actors Keene Reeves and Halle Bury had “multi-colored” parents.
It should be noted that the Bush administration has made the test more difficult for immigrants seeking US citizenship. Everyday racism has not been completely eradicated. There are various marginal neo-fascist organizations (which, as is known, also prepared attempts on Obama’s life). The success of many years of advocacy efforts aimed at overcoming the consequences of racial discrimination is obvious. It’s not for nothing that Hollywood has been circulating black-and-white partners for so many years, it’s not for nothing that self-censorship (political correctness) is being cultivated, and it’s not for nothing that on the eve of elections the media remember African-Americans who at one time became the first in one field or another. At the same time, we should not forget how in the 2000s. Intercommunal clashes occurred, paralyzing Miami and Los Angeles for several days. Troops had to be sent into the largest cities of America to stop the mutual pogroms of Koreans and blacks, Latin Americans and whites, and the outrages of ethnic criminal gangs.
There is no consensus among experts about exactly how a change in the ethnic composition of the American population will affect the United States and the socio-political system in the country. Some American researchers believe that the ethnic factor is secondary compared to the prospects for a fundamental change in the economic model that underlies the American economy. In the United States, the upper political establishment is dominated by whites. They make up almost 100% of the local elite. Today, ethnic minorities have almost no tools to change the current situation. It is possible that they will not appear in the future. Ethnic minorities do not have their own legal political parties and movements. And the American political system is structured in such a way that an attempt to legalize its own power will lead it into the fold of one of the two existing parties, Democratic or Republican. It is impossible to predict what the role of ethnic minorities will be in the US economy, since we do not know on what principles the new US economic model will be based.
A completely different picture is painted by Anatoly Utkin, director of the Center for International Studies of the Institute of the USA and Canada (ISKRAN). In his opinion, as a result of changes in the ethnic composition of the population, the United States itself will radically change. America's internal psychology and culture will change. The United States will become part of Hispanidad, the greater Spanish-speaking world. Bilingualism will become the norm: Cervantes will be studied in schools in the same way as Shakespeare is studied today. Moreover, what is important is not how many “Spaniards” and blacks there will be in the USA, but that they will be 30-40 years old, young and full of energy, while a significant part of whites will be retirees who are only interested in vacationing in Florida. The changes will be colossal. The United States will elect a Hispanic president. The military elite will be “Latin” and “black.” Residents will go to Mexican-style churches. A one-party system may be established in the country, the separation of powers will disappear, and military coups will become the political norm. It is worth listening to the opinion of some experts who do not rule out that a change in the ethnic mosaic in CIIIA could contribute to the disintegration of the United States into several states, although the likelihood of this is minimal.
A. Utkin's opinion is an extreme point of view. It still seems that the evolutionary path of development of the United States will take place, without radical social and political upheavals. Complete mixing of races and ethnicities will not happen, assimilation will stop, multiculturalism will win. In the coming decades, racially and ethnically, American society is likely to gradually transform into a Latin American-type society with a large admixture of Asian elements.
One of the most famous supporters of “black Muslims” is the American director, screenwriter and actor Spike Lee (born 1956). His real name is Sheldon Jackson (he chose the pseudonym Spike, that is, “spike”) at school. He is the undoubted leader of black film culture of the 80s and 90s. Dedicated to the Million Black Man March initiated by Muslim leader Farrakhan, Get on That Bus (1996) is far from the aggressive thrust of Malcolm X.
Melting pot model
In the 20s of the twentieth century, Anglo-conformism gave way to a new model of ethnic development of the “melting pot” or “melting crucible”. In the history of American social thought, this model occupies a special place, because the main social ideal, which boiled down to the fact that in a truly free, democratic society people will tend to live among racially and ethnically mixed neighbors has existed in the United States for a long time." "This theory is a variant of the "amalgamation" theory that arose immediately after the American Revolution, i.e. free merger of representatives of different European peoples and cultures. The "melting pot" along with the theory of Angloconformism formed the theoretical core of the classical school of ethnicity in the United States of America. As M. Gordon wrote, “although Angloconformism in its various manifestations was the predominant ideology of assimilation, in American historical practice there was a competing model with more general and idealistic tones, which had its adherents from XVIII century, and then successors."
By the way, about the term. It is associated with the title of the play by the British journalist and playwright I. Zanguill, who often came to the USA and knew the life of this country. The essence of the play "The Melting Pot" was that in the United States of America there was a merger various peoples and their national cultures, resulting in the formation of a single American nation. Main character plays - a young immigrant from Russia Horace Alger, looking from a ship that arrived in the port of New York, exclaimed: “America is the greatest melting pot created by God, in which all the peoples of Europe are fused... Germans and French, Irish and English, Jews and the Russians - all into this crucible. This is how God creates a nation of Americans."
And in the future, I. Zanguill imagined the United States of America as a kind of gigantic “cauldron” capable of digesting and making homogeneous the entire mass of the newcomer population, multilingual and motley in many respects. The American researcher G. Morgan stated in his work “America without Ethnicity” that this “was the hope for America, the only way to transform millions of people with different attitudes, values and lifestyles into a homogeneous group with the goal of peaceful coexistence, regardless of their history.”
The play was staged at the Columbia Theater in Washington in October 1908 and was a great success. President T. Roosevelt, who was present at the performance, gave a high assessment of the play. The play was also supported by one of the political figures of that time, W. Brian, who liked the idea expressed by I. Zanguill. He, in particular, noted: “Great were the Greek, the Slav, the Celt, the Teutonic and the Saxon; but greater than them are the Americans, combining the dignity of each of them.” After Washington, the play ran for 6 months in Chicago, and 136 performances were shown in New York. It was staged in many cities across the country, and in 1914 in London. As noted in the press of those years, the author of "The Melting Pot" emphasized that a genuine, real American must be an American of mixed descent.
At a time when the play was staged in many theaters across the country, the issue of immigration was hotly debated among the public and experts. In 1916, the Government Publishing Office published the report of a special commission chaired by W. P. Dillingham on immigration issues in 42 volumes. The central idea of the report was that immigrants from the South and Eastern Europe threatened American society and the core of the American nation, being a source of crime, various diseases and social conflicts. Regarding this report, a number of experts in the field of interethnic relations noted, “a forty-two-volume publication containing statistical data was compiled to prove the unworthiness of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe to become Americans.” I. Zanguill assured his readers that the arrival of “new” immigrants did not pose not only a threat, but also no cause for concern.
A few years later, Literary Digest wrote about Zanguill: “He used a phrase that will long delay the restriction of immigration to America.”
And although not everyone in the scientific world liked Zanguill’s concept of a mixed American nation (it was actively rejected by such authoritative scientists as E. Ross and F. Steimer), this theory also found many admirers. For example, an article published in one of the magazines entitled "Plays That Make People Think" thanked Zanguill for drawing attention to a social problem that really existed in America, the issue of immigration. The article, in particular, noted: “No sane person will deny that the social future of the country depends mainly on the answer to this question. Zanguill’s play was a success largely due to the presentation of the problem.”
One way or another, the term “melting pot” received its citizenship in the 20s of the twentieth century, becoming increasingly widespread both in public life and in science. “The melting pot” was called one of the main paradigms of ethnic development in the United States in the twentieth century. According to the American researcher A. Mann, “the very phrase “melting pot” has become a national symbol of this century.” In accordance with this paradigm, the formation of American national identity was supposed to follow the formula of “fusion”, “mixing” of all peoples, and both their cultural and biological mixing were assumed. The formulated theoretical concept had an apologetic character in the sense that it denied the existence of any conflicts in society - social or ethnic.
In general, the phenomenon of ethnic mixing of people from various countries and peoples was noted and recorded in literature back in the 18th century. Thus, Tom Paine, in his pamphlet entitled “The General Feeling,” written in 1776, noted that “the Americans are not transplanted Englishmen. They are a mixture of many European nations, they are a nation of immigrants.” The image of the American people one nation, which has a special culture and traditions, was developed by literati, publicists, poets, and writers after Paine. T. Payne’s idea was actively supported American writer French origin J. Crevecoeur in “Letters from an American Farmer,” published in Europe back in 1782, where he drew attention to the fact that in America there is such a mixture of blood that cannot be found in any other country. He, in particular, wrote: “Here representatives of all nations are mixed into a new race of people.” And he saw the main path to this in interethnic marriages. “Who is he, American, this new man?” he wondered
J. Crevecoeur. - He is not a European or a descendant of a European, therefore it is a strange mixture of blood that you will not find in any other country. I can point you to a family where the grandfather was English, and his wife was Danish, their son is married to a French woman, they have four sons, whose wives are representatives of different nations. He is an American..."
The passage quoted is an indication of the traditional approach to considering the problem of the American nation. Although Crevecoeur did not use the term "melting pot", he nevertheless spoke of representatives of different nations fusing together in the process of modernization into a new community of people and creating a new American culture. At the same time, as noted in the literature, Crevecoeur and his followers said almost nothing about what traditions, customs and habits would make up this new American culture.
The myth of Americanization created by Crevecoeur, according to G. Gerstle, consisted of four main provisions: firstly, European immigrants certainly wanted to part with the way of life of the Old World and become Americans; secondly, Americanization was quick and easy, since immigrants had no significant obstacles in its path; thirdly, Americanization “fused” immigrants into a single race, culture, nation, regardless of space and time; and fourth, immigrants perceived Americanization as liberation from Old World slavery, poverty, and coercion.
Life later showed how difficult the path of immigrants’ integration into American society turned out to be, and many of Crevecoeur’s provisions were not implemented in practice and turned out to be a myth. Nevertheless, the optimistic and progressive concept of the “melting pot” found its supporters in the 19th century. Thus, it was supported by one of the most influential intellectuals of the time, an American of English origin, R. Emerson. Great popularity in late XIX V. A four-volume publication by T. Roosevelt (at that time a historian and writer) entitled “Victory over the West” was also received, where the author wrote about the border, praised the strengthening of American power and the colonization of the West, and planned the use of force outside the continental borders of the United States to expand its sphere of influence. The book was admired and Harvard scientists wrote laudatory reviews of it. As N. Glaser noted in the article “The American Epic Poem: Then and Now,” published in the journal Public Interest in 1998, during the colonization of the West, T. Roosevelt “exalted the role of only one element of the American population, namely, English-speaking people and did not notice others, which undoubtedly indicates a lack of political correctness."
However, the idea of a “melting pot” received its real theoretical form in the works of the leading American historian F.J. Turner. The American researcher J. Bennett, who studied the scientific work of F. Turner, noted that Turner was not the first to draw attention to the border factor as a unique driving force in the formation and development of the American nation. Even B. Franklin and T. Jefferson believed that the constant movement of immigrants to the West contributed to the growth of cities and the development of American democracy. A number of historians have also pointed out that American democracy was shaped as the frontier moved west. However, all these views, J. Bennett continued, had little influence on the American public opinion of those years; the country was not ready to accept the border hypothesis. The intellectual climate in the United States relative to her changed later and in to a greater extent thanks to F. Turner.
F. Turner is the author of four books: “The Rise of the New West”, “The Significance of Sections in American History”, “The United States 1830 - 1850: the Nation and Its Sections”, “The Frontier in American History”. The latter is a collection of articles, the most famous of which is an article entitled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History," which sets out the scholar's credo on American ethnicity. The article was based on F. Turner's report, which he delivered at a meeting of the American Historical Association in 1893 and which became an event in the history of American scientific thought. The report emphasized that the evolution of a complex national identity was central to understanding American history, and that one of the most important factors without which American society cannot be understood is the frontier factor. “In the crucible of the frontier, the immigrants were Americanized, liberated, and mingled into an American race distinct from the Anglo-Saxon, both in national and other characteristics.” Thus, the scientist rejected the conclusions that were dominant at that time in the United States of the Anglo-Saxon school, which viewed the United States as a European civilization transferred to the New World.
Many late-19th-century American historians educated at German universities accepted without question the idea that American institutions were fundamentally derived from Anglo-Saxon and ultimately Teutonic sources. A prominent representative of the Anglo-Saxon school was the influential American historian Herbert Adams, whose lectures F. Turner attended. Turner did not share his teacher's view that American institutions are European institutions.
Assessing the role of Europeans in the formation of American society, Turner believed that American institutions basically had much in common with European ones, with special emphasis on their differences. In his opinion, in order to survive in new conditions, a European had to adapt to these conditions. Gradually he triumphed over savagery, conquered the desert and transformed it. Thus, as the frontier moved westward, European influence diminished and civilization became American. The western regions of the continent, developed by settlers, were for Turner a melting pot (although this term was not used by the historian), where various European peoples mixed, overcoming localism, disunity and hostility. The American researcher R. Billington, in a book dedicated to F. Turner, wrote the following: “For Turner, the border was the main force in creating the American nation and instilling loyalty among its peoples.”
For many years, a significant number of American and European social scientists were influenced by Turner's theory. The secret of his popularity was that Turner did not simply draw attention, in contrast to previous historiography, to the importance of geographical and economic factors, but offered a historical explanation of American social development, based primarily on the unique conditions of the formation of the United States. F. Turner put forward the thesis about the special “creative” role of the colonization of “free” Western lands in the creation of American society and the “unique” ideals of American democracy.” Until the last days, wrote F. Turner, American history was largely the history of the colonization of the Great West. Availability of free land and continuous advance of settlements in
The West explains the development of America." In the beginning, the "frontier" was the Atlantic coast; it was the "frontier" of Europe. The movement of the "frontier" to the West meant a gradual removal from the influence of Europe and a steady increase in movement along the American path. "To study the movement of these people brought up under the influence of new conditions, their political, economic and social results means studying American history,” wrote F. Turner.
Turner and his followers based their analysis on the primary role of the geographical environment, the “environment.” This meant that the main determinant of the historical process was declared to be the geographical factor. This methodology was the basis for the theory of sections, with which Turner supplemented his concept. He defined its essence by the fact that when immigrants resettled, different geographical regions arose in front of them. There was an interaction between immigration flows and new geographic regions. The result was a combination of two factors, land and people, creating different societies in different sections.
According to Turner, the United States was represented as a federation of various sections (regions): the West, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Northwest, the East, the Atlantic Coast Section, New England, the South and many others. The main strategies in their relationship were agreement and compromise. He saw sectional differences as the source of the future development of American society, in which diversity would remain, and it would be manifested in the socio-economic contrasts and competitions of different regions. “The importance of sections in American history is such,” wrote F. Turner, “that ... we should reconsider our history from the point of view of this factor.” Assessing Turner's theory, J. Highem noted the following: “He viewed the West as a huge melting pot of European peoples and his entire approach to American history can be understood as a way of asserting primacy geographical factor over racial and cultural. Turner's pluralism is the affirmation of sectional (regional) diversity as a dynamic principle in American life."
Turner's "sectionism" was widely discussed among specialists. Some agreed with Turner's views, others refuted them.
F. Turner's interpretation of the "melting pot" concept was somewhat different from I. Zanguill's interpretation. If the latter believed that all immigrants without exception, national minorities - the British, Germans, French, Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, representatives of the black and yellow races - are susceptible to the action of the "cauldron", then F. Turner, speaking about the mixing of representatives of different nations , meant primarily “old” immigration.
At the end of the 19th century, when the migration movements in the United States had largely ended, Turner's "migration melting pot" gave way to the "urban melting pot." It was quite obvious that the main stage on which the ethnic development of America unfolded was its cities; their importance grew rapidly throughout the second century. half of XIX V. and continued even more rapidly in the twentieth century. For example, at the end of the 19th century. - early 20th century Up to 80% of newly arrived immigrants settled in US cities. Here were the most favorable objective conditions for the assimilation of immigrants. However, large concentrations of immigrants of the same nationality in cities and their settlement in separate neighborhoods simultaneously stimulated ethnic unity, the activities of ethnic organizations, etc. The latter was accelerated by the fact that ethnic organizations switched to English and became similar in their activities to ordinary American organizations. Thus, ethnocentric currents developing in an urban setting, while remaining internally contradictory, generally contributed to assimilation.
The effectiveness of the “urban melting pot” was enhanced by immigration policies ruling circles USA and immigration law. According to the authoritative American sociologist M. Gordon, “some researchers interpreted the “open door” policy of the first thirds of the XIX V. as a reflection of the underlying belief in the effectiveness of the American "melting pot", the belief "that all can be absorbed and all can contribute to the national character".
The theory of the “urban melting pot” was developed in the works of sociologist at the University of Chicago, founder of the Chicago school in the field of race relations theory R. Park. Under his leadership, as well as the active assistance of the leading American historian L. Wirth at the University of Chicago in the late 20s of the twentieth century. a course on problems of racial and ethnic relations was created for the first time, and a scientific counter-offensive was launched against Anglo-Saxon racists and supporters of 100% Americanization. In his well-known work “Race and Culture,” R. Park tried to consider the problem of immigrants and blacks in the context of the global process of assimilation, affecting both European nations and Asian races. As J. Highem wrote, "If we look closely at Park's conceptual scheme, we will find an improved version of the classic American ideal of assimilation, carried on by some radicals who included both black Americans and immigrants in this process."
Emphasizing the urban lifestyle, R. Park emphasized that it is he who brings people together. He wrote: "... Every society, every nation and every civilization is a boiling cauldron and thus contributes to the fusion of races, as a result of which new races and new cultures inevitably arise." The scientist believed that the process of assimilation would cover a global scale and in this way a new world civilization would emerge. For him, the “melting pot” is the whole world. He put forward a model of a four-stage development of the process of interethnic interactions in any multiethnic state: contacts, conflicts, adaptation and assimilation. Assimilation was the final stage in the cycle of interethnic relations. Moreover, for R. Park, assimilation seemed to be a process in which not only the newcomer assimilated, adapting to new market conditions, but also the society receiving him also changed.
Having passed the four-stage path of development, the national state, according to R. Park, will exhaust itself and the world will evolve towards the creation of a global cosmopolitan community. In this regard, he urged his colleagues to overcome national boundaries and learn to think in “global categories.” Describing Park's assimilationist vision, renowned race relations theorist P. L. Van den Berghe wrote: "The significance of the melting pot and the experiences of European immigrant groups in the industrial cities of North America at the end of the 19th century gave impetus to Park's Chicago school, which saw assimilation as the final phase "the cycle of race relations." For a wide variety of reasons, assimilationism seemed the most acceptable liberal way of solving the problems of national minorities for the ruling classes of centralized bureaucratic states, both capitalist and socialist."
Representatives of Park's Chicago school were prominent scientists M. Gordon, A. Rose, G. Allport, R. Williams, O. Kleinberg and others. It was this school that laid the so-called tradition of liberal assimilationism, according to which the main path in solving the national problems of all states was defined as the path of assimilation of various peoples, “grinding and absorbing them into a single whole.” From the point of view of this concept, races and nations are dysfunctional in industrial societies, represent the legacy of previous eras and must ultimately disappear under the influence of urbanization, industrialization, and modernization.
Liberal academic establishment great value in achieving the homogenization of society was given to the educational system. It is significant that in 1927 the President's address to the National Education Association emphasized: "The great American school system is the starting point of the melting pot." It was the education system that should have been the main mechanism in the implementation of policies aimed at the assimilation of ethnic groups, a mechanism that would produce results in the shortest possible time. In addition, in achieving the ideal of the “melting pot,” its creators and followers saw the main path through mixed marriages, which were indeed the most important channel for the processes of natural assimilation. However, the attitude towards the fact of interethnic and interracial marriages on the part of followers of the “melting pot” model was different. If one part welcomed the participation of people, regardless of skin color, in the “melting pot”, as, for example, R. Emerson, to whom America seemed to be a state where the energy of the Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, people from all over Europe, as well as Africans, Polynesians, a new nation, religion, literature is being created, then a significant part did not leave room in the “melting pot” for black Americans, Indians, etc.
Existing data on the dynamics of the number of mixed marriages in the country before the beginning of the twentieth century. are very fragmentary and imprecise to fully judge the effectiveness of the “melting pot”. The lack of statistical data for the 18th century makes it impossible to determine the degree of assimilation of the population in the United States during this period. Subsequently, as a result of empirical research in one of the American states over a 30-year period of the 19th century. (1850 - 1880) it was concluded that the "melting pot" as a whole worked slowly during these years.
For later periods, there was also a lack of data on the processes of ethnic mixing, which made it impossible to see the full picture of the results of integration. This has led some researchers to argue that the "melting pot" never existed. However, according to sociologist A. Mann, "millions of Americans of mixed descent knew differently. Interethnic marriages have happened and are happening, and anyone who doubts this should look around." Intermarriage increased, for example, among endogenous Jews. Author of the article "Accumulation without assimilation?" E. Rosenthal gives the following figures: in the 30s of the twentieth century, the number of interethnic marriages among Jews was 6%, in 1957 - 7.2%, in 1960 - 11.5%. A 1953 study of Jews in Iowa found an intermarriage rate of 31 percent, causing some Jewish leaders to worry about maintaining their ethnic group. Biological assimilation affected the Irish and other ethnic groups. By 1960, more than half of Irish men had taken a woman of a different nationality as their life partner. According to American sociologist T. Sowell, the Irish have become so Americanized that some of them complain about the loss of their distinctive individual characteristics. Ethnically mixed marriages are typical for Italians and Poles, as evidenced by the following figures: in 1930, endogeneity among Italians was 71%, Poles - 79%. The picture became completely different in 1960: endogeneity dropped to 27% and 33%, respectively. An increase in the proportion of families with spouses of a different nationality also occurred among Asian peoples, in particular the Japanese. If in 1920 in Los Angeles, for example, only 2% of all marriages were mixed, then after World War II this figure rose to 11-12%, and by the end of the 1950s. amounted to more than 20%. As for the dynamics of the number of black-white marriages in the country for the first half of the twentieth century, there are no exact data, since in most states such statistics were not preserved or published. However, on average, the share of black-white marriages, according to the American sociologist E. Frazier, even in large cities until 1940 did not exceed 3%, and in the country as a whole was many times lower. On the eve of World War II, interracial marriage was still illegal in 31 states (16 in the South, 15 in the North and West).
Along with biological assimilation, which to one degree or another captured various ethnic groups and racial minorities, social and cultural assimilation took place, but its development was also hampered by racial discrimination, ethnic prejudices and prejudices, which became especially acute during the economic crisis of 1929 - 1933. In many places, immigrants were fired first, sometimes before black Americans, leading to the isolation of various ethnic groups and the persistence of “foreign” ghettos. The Indians also suffered from the crisis. They were no longer given benefits, many of them went from the reservations to the cities in search of work. Racism intensified in the country, and there was a wave of physical violence against blacks and immigrants, which caused a reaction of ethnocentrism on the part of national minorities and immigrant groups. This trend continued during the Second World War, fueled by discriminatory measures such as hiring restrictions, despite the great need for immigrant labor. In general, the war period contributed to the influx of new ethnic groups, the improvement of their situation, etc. It was already mentioned above that during the Second World War, the United States entered into short-term agreements with Mexico on the use of Mexican workers, both in industry and agriculture farm. And Mexican immigrants benefited from the war boom, but they were still paid less than other workers for the same work. The American writer of Yugoslav origin L. Adamik wrote about this in his book “Nation of Nations,” published in 1945.
The most difficult situation during the Second World War was the situation of the Japanese national minority. The Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base on December 7, 1941 caused a powerful anti-Japanese wave and prepared the majority of the population to make a decision to place the Japanese in camps. On February 19, 1942, F. Roosevelt signed an emergency law, according to which persons of Japanese nationality, including those who had US citizenship, were subject to eviction from their previous places of residence (mainly in California) and isolation. American military authorities forced the evacuation of the Japanese and placed them in concentration camps in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arkansas (the small part of the Japanese remaining in California were imprisoned). From March to November 1942, more than 100 thousand men, women and children were interned. The resettlement was carried out under the pretext of the need to protect the country from espionage activities of Japanese agents. The financial losses of the Japanese as a result of this essentially punitive operation amounted to about 400,000,000. dollars (taking into account the price level of 1942). According to a specialist from the Center military history US War Department D. Bask, the espionage mania was caused by many years of intensification of ideas about the growing expansionism of Japan and the resulting national security considerations. The forced expulsion of 1942 was one of the most tragic and unjust events national history USA. Many of its dark pages have still not been told.
The operation to set up concentration camps for the “unreliable” during the war did not stir up the American public and did not cause mass condemnation. Voices of protest, although they were heard, were isolated; almost all publications whipped up a negative attitude towards the Japanese, hysteria and hostility. The Japanese were periodically declared to be a potential threat to American security.
What was the Japanese attitude towards the war? One part of the minority put forward the following motive: “We... are not able to influence events, just like the German-Americans did not influence Hitler’s seizure of Poland or the Italians living in the USA did not influence Mussolini’s war in Ethiopia.” Another part of the Japanese insisted that “they are Americans” and argued that the special treatment they received was unfair and even insisted on being drafted into the US Army to prove their patriotism towards their new homeland. Note that in 1942, all military personnel of Japanese nationality were discharged from the United States Army. It was not until January 1943 that Nisei (second-generation Japanese settlers) began recruiting into the army, and most Japanese soldiers sought every opportunity to prove their loyalty to the United States. In total, more than 300,000 Japanese Americans fought during the war. They were sent to the hottest spots. According to T. Sowell, “the tragic wartime experience was a turning point in the history of Japanese Americans.”
President F. Roosevelt, whose order was carried out in 1942, already in 1944 publicly defended the loyalty of the Japanese living in the United States. That same year, the US Supreme Court declared "the act of internment of Japanese who are American citizens unconstitutional."
After the release of the Japanese from the camps, their return to normal life it was not easy. Despite the fact that many Japanese who fought in the US Army were awarded high awards, despite the very rapid reorientation of American policy towards Japan towards a strategic alliance - political, military, economic and psychological - the legacy of the war in the form of anti-Japanese sentiment in broad layers the American population continued to be affected for a long time. Many problems arose in restoring the economic position of the Japanese, especially in agriculture. White settlers, who seized Japanese plots in California during the war, tried in 1944 to prevent the return of the former owners to the places of their former residence and business activities.
The situation of German and Italian immigrants at the beginning of the war was complicated by their origins, and their reaction to the war included a complex set of ethnic ties and attitudes. As John F. Kennedy noted in his book A Nation of Immigrants, at the beginning of the war only a small number of German Americans joined the pro-Nazi German-American Bund movement, many of them leaving once they discovered its true nature. They served bravely in the U.S. military during the war and successfully integrated into the American system. As for the majority of Italian immigrants, strong internationalist, anti-fascist sentiments prevailed among them during the war years. In general, World War II contributed to the bringing together of people of different races and nationalities on an anti-fascist basis, who fought together, worked in war production, etc. It is noteworthy that immigrants who sympathized with their native countries in peacetime fought against them in American troops. On this basis, some American scientists during the war years defended the thesis of the disappearance of ethnic groups and the achievement of homogeneity of society. Thus, the American researcher L. Warner wrote in 1945: “The future of American ethnic groups seems to be becoming problematic, it seems that they will soon merge.” We find a similar opinion in the book “Ethnic Americans,” in the preface to which the famous theorist in the field of interethnic relations I. Winger noted that immediately after the war, many Americans decided that all ethnic elements would merge into a single whole. But there were also opposing assessments of the development of ethnic and racial relations in the United States at that time. For example, One America, published in 1945, argued that the “melting pot” was a myth. America will continue to be a nation of heterogeneous people..." And some modern experts on ethnic processes believe that the influence of World War II on Americans' attitudes toward ethnicity should be considered in the complex relationship of "pluralism" and "assimilation." "During the war, - they write, - society attached great importance to instilling tolerance among people, developing an understanding of the essence of ethnic diversity and discrediting racism. At the same time, wartime propaganda placed special emphasis on the ideological unity of Americans and their devotion to their universal democratic values. Difference could be accepted solely because it was based on the assumption that unity underlies everything."
Overall in American literature since the 20s of the twentieth century. the dominant opinion was about successful development the American nation according to the formula of a “melting pot”, a “mixing” of representatives of various peoples, despite their ethnic and cultural differences. Sociologist R. Kennedy made some adjustments to the “melting pot” theory. Having studied marital behavior, namely ethnically mixed marriages in New Haven (Connecticut), she came to the conclusion that religion is decisive in marriage: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism. Assimilation took place within a certain system: the British, Germans and Scandinavians mostly married among themselves and rarely went beyond these ethnic communities; the next system was composed of the Irish, Italians and Poles; the third - Jews who married only within their ethnic community. Thus, R. Kennedy believed, we should abandon the idea of a single “melting pot” and move to the formula of a “triple melting pot”, which will determine American society in the future. “We should note,” she wrote, “that while strict endogamy is being lost, religious endogamy is being established and in the future will take place along religious lines rather than along national lines, as was the case in the past. If this is so, then traditional single The melting pot must give way to a new concept, which we call the "triple melting pot." The theory of American assimilation will take its place as a real reflection of what is happening to the various national groups in the United States."
The interpretation of the assimilation processes of R. Kennedy was supported by the theologian W. Herberg in his work “Protestant - Catholic - Jew,” where he also noted that “with the disappearance of ethnic communities, religious groups will become the main communities and identities in America.” Subsequently, the ideas of Kennedy and Herberg found their development in the book by R. Lee “Social Sources of Religious Unity.”
However, the data cited by R. Kennedy on the number of mixed marriages concluded within the framework of the three above-mentioned religions refute her own concept. In 1870, Protestants (British, Germans, Scandinavians) married 99.11% within their system, Catholics (Italians, Irish, Poles) - 93.35%, Jews - 100%, then in 1900 these figures were respectively - 90.86%, 85.78%, 98.82%; in 1930 -78.19%, 82.05%, 97.01%; in 1940 - 79.72%, 83.71%, 94.32%, and in 1950 - 70.34%, 72.64%, 96.01%.
American researchers, in particular R. Alba, also pointed out the vulnerability of R. Kennedy’s point of view. In an article on the Catholic community, he cited the following data: 40 percent of Catholics born after the First World War married Protestants. Now Catholics, Alba wrote, make up one quarter of the country's total population, three quarters of them have married people of other faiths.
The scientist offered the reader his analysis of the dynamics of the growth in the number of mixed marriages among Italians, Germans, Irish and Poles during the period before the First World War and after the Second World War. Thus, according to his calculations, the number of marriages concluded outside one’s own group was: among Italians - 21 and 40%, Germans - 41 and 51%, Irish - 18 and 40%, Poles - 20 and 35%. On this basis, R. Alba comes to the completely opposite conclusion of R. Kennedy that “the increasing number of interreligious marriages among Catholics indicates a decrease in the importance of religious boundaries for the majority of the Catholic group.”
A different assessment of the nature and scale of assimilation was given by L. Warner and his colleague L. Srawl in the book “Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups.” Taking as a basis the factor of differences between cultural and physical signs between immigrants and their host society, researchers have constructed such a hierarchy of assimilation, according to which representatives of the Caucasian race with a light type of appearance, primarily immigrants from Northern Europe. They are followed by representatives of the same race, but with darker skin and hair color - people from Southern Europe, etc. Next are various mixtures of the Caucasian race with other racial groups (for example, Mexican Americans). Representatives of the Mongoloid race have even less opportunity for assimilation, and persons belonging to the Negroid race have the least chance.
The US melting pot has been effective in absorbing large numbers of immigrants from a variety of countries, speaking many languages, different traditions and customs of different religions. Its results were especially evident in the spiritual life of individual ethnic groups and the country as a whole. In particular, the number of ethnic organizations decreased, but there were significant changes in them, their character changed. They were also subjected to assimilation and lost many ethnic features (in many cases, language and, to a large extent, original ethnic functions). Ethnic societies, while protecting the cultural autonomy of immigrants, at the same time promoted their rapprochement with the surrounding society.
As noted above, the most significant, if not the most significant, element of the assimilation process is linguistic assimilation. National languages were increasingly replaced by English, their use decreased, although at different rates in different groups. The importance of printed publications in national languages decreased. If in 1910 there were 70 German magazines in America, then in 1960 there were only 60 of them left. The publication of newspapers in the Hebrew, Scandinavian and Italian languages was reduced. The number of Italian magazines decreased from 12 (that’s how many there were at the beginning of the century) to 5 in 1960. During the same period, the publication of French magazines decreased from 9 to 1. Immigrants used their native language less and less in such an important institution as the church . The transition to English monolingualism was facilitated by the growth mass media communications and other factors. Naturally, all this to a certain extent consolidated the US population. For the period 20 - 60 years. In the twentieth century, the trend of assimilation and integration was dominant in the United States. This was stated by the leading American scientist S. Steinberg in the book “Ethnic Myth”: “For decades, the dominant trend among ethnic groups and racial minorities was the tendency towards integration into the economic, political and cultural life"A significant number of recent immigrants and their descendants, especially those in mixed marriages, lost ties with their ethnic group and during surveys and censuses found it difficult to determine their ethnic origin by their ancestor people and called their American origin as such. As T. Sowell wrote, " social attitude attitudes toward race and ethnicity changed significantly, especially after World War II. Mixed marriages among the Irish, Germans and Poles exceeded 50%, the same can be said about the Japanese... Millions of Americans cannot classify themselves as belonging to any group 7 y 9 ppe, since from generation to generation they were mixed."
Along with the processes of assimilation and integration in American society in the 60s, there was an increase in ethnic and cultural self-determination of ethnic groups and minorities. According to a number of American scientists, as for blacks and other non-white citizens, they remained outside the “melting pot”, occupying the position of “second-class” citizens. “African Americans and Native Americans, (i.e. Indians - Z. Ch.), - wrote F. Burke, - regardless of how they dress, what they eat, what cult they profess, they are denied access to the 'melting pot' "because of color or history." Civil rights activists began to demand the integration of blacks and other national minorities into American society on the basis of equality in socio-economic and political life. The increased activity of representatives of racial and ethnic groups made it necessary to continue the development of the theory of interethnic relations, since the paradigms established in American theoretical science were called into question. Realities changed, and the “melting pot” was replaced by a new paradigm - “cultural pluralism.” As A. Mann noted, theories may come and go, but ethnic diversity remains an important factor in American life. But objective conditions for the “melting pot” exist today - this is the entry of immigrants into the economic and social life, settling of new arrivals in cities, migration of the population within the country and widespread interethnic communication. Thus, the problem of the “melting pot” is still relevant in scientific terms today.
What positive and negative consequences of the “meeting of worlds” manifested themselves in the history of Latin America in the 19th century?
Meeting of worlds. When the Great Geographical Discoveries brought Europeans to the New World 500 years ago, there was a direct “collision” of two worlds - the world of the Indians with the world of the Spaniards and Portuguese. Relations could not be friendly - the gap in the level of development was too great, and besides, the conquistadors, as you remember, were guided by the motto: “God, glory and gold!” A new society was already emerging in Europe with its spirit of entrepreneurship, the desire for personal gain, personal success, and the desire to subordinate the entire world around it to its interests. And this Europe came into contact with a continent where traditional societies existed, where people lived and worked as their ancestors lived and worked - trying to adapt to the environment, submitting to communal orders.
Colonization, during which the foci died ancient culture Indians, lasted until the middle of the 17th century. And yet, faced with the world of the Indians, the Spanish and Portuguese conquest was forced to come to terms with the preservation of some elements of their culture, communal orders, and the Indians ultimately adopted some features spanish culture and Christianity. The meeting of such different cultures marked the beginning of the emergence of Latin American society.
Creation of a colonial system of government. By the middle of the 17th century. The colonization of Latin America was completed and a colonial system of government began to be created. Apart from Brazil, which was captured by the Portuguese, all of South America belonged to Spain. The lands captured in the New World were declared the property of the Spanish crown. The system of colonial administration was primarily supposed to protect the property rights of the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs; the colonies were governed by Spanish and Portuguese officials. Cities had local governments that dealt with judicial matters and issues of improvement. At the same time, the colonialists did not destroy the Indian community and left the caciques, elders whose power was hereditary, at the head of the Indian villages. Communal orders were used by the Spaniards to govern the colonies and organize economic life. The community provided the colonialists with collective corvee labor.
To suppress possible competition from the colonies, the authorities interfered with the development of local industry and the construction of manufactories. In the colonies of the New World, it was allowed to produce only what was not grown in Spain and Portugal: tobacco, coffee, sugar cane, maize.
In pursuit of profit, the conquerors spared no one and turned the Indians into free labor - slaves. Hundreds and thousands of them died in mines and plantations from overwork, hunger and disease. Refusal to work was brutally suppressed, Indians were tortured and killed, sparing neither women nor children.
Many of the Indians eventually turned into hereditary debt slaves - peons - attached to the land, and this dependence was inherited by the next generation.
Since the Indians were dying out and there were not enough workers in the mines and plantations, the Spaniards in the 16th-18th centuries. They began to import stronger and more resilient black slaves from Africa to America.
TO early XIX V. the majority of the Indian population were enslaved peasants, as well as workers in mines, factories, craft workshops, loaders and domestic servants.
Only in some hard-to-reach areas remained tribes that did not recognize the power of the colonialists and resisted them. In some regions, free peasant communities remained.
Latin American Society. Latin American society finally emerged in the 19th century. Its composition has changed over the years. The privileged elite were white natives of the metropolis: representatives of the family nobility and wealthy merchants. They occupied almost all the highest administrative, military and church positions, and owned large estates and mines.
An indigenous white population also appeared - the Creoles - descendants of the Spaniards and Portuguese, born in the colonies. Among them were large and small landowners, entrepreneurs - owners of mines and factories, administration officials, officers, priests, and artisans. Formally, Creoles had the same rights as natives of the metropolis, but they were not allowed to occupy senior positions in the colonial administration system.
As a result of mixed marriages in the colonies, mestizos (descendants of a mixed marriage of whites and Indians), mulattoes (descendants of a mixed marriage of whites and blacks) and sambo (descendants of a mixed marriage of Indians and blacks) appeared in the colonies. All of them did not have civil rights, could not hold positions of officials and officers, or participate in elections local authorities authorities. All these people were gradually united by a common language and one religion.
The time of the liberators. The history of Latin America contains many pages devoted to wars against colonial dependence. In 1791, a revolt of black slaves began on the island of Haiti. The alarm bell of the revolution in France echoed powerfully in this French colony (the French name for the colony of Saint-Domingue). After a long struggle in the western part of the island, the first independent state of Latin America, Haiti, was proclaimed in 1804.
Simon Bolivar
The “time of liberators” was the 19th century. By the beginning of the century, the Spanish colonial empire in America had a territory of more than 10 million square meters. km and extended from San Francisco to Cape Horn.
At the beginning of the 19th century. In the Spanish colonies of America, a patriotic movement of Creoles arose, thinking about secession from Spain. Secret organizations were created in the colonies, documents of the Great French Revolution were illegally published and distributed.
In 1811, Venezuela declared itself an independent republic. Among the members of the Patriotic Society, which led the liberation movement, the young officer Simon Bolivar stood out. A widely educated man, a brilliant speaker and publicist, he also possessed extraordinary talent as a commander.
At first, the leaders of the liberation movement saw their task only in expelling the colonialists and did not seek to change the existing order. However, the blacks and Indians did not support them, and then Bolivar issued decrees in which he promised to grant freedom to the slaves who joined the revolutionary army, and land to the peasants.
Bolivar understood that Venezuela could not defend its independence alone; to fight, it was necessary to have allies. He led his army to help the neighboring country - New Granada. It was a legendary crossing of the Andes. Every day it became colder. The rain turned to snow. The icy wind knocked me off my feet. Mountain falls and trees torn out by the storm blocked the way. All the horses died, the soldiers lost consciousness from lack of oxygen, and fell into the abyss. Bolivar, in a tattered general's uniform, led the vanguard, inspiring the soldiers with his courage. Of the 3,400 soldiers, only 1,500 came down from the mountains.
The Spanish troops were defeated. Venezuela and New Granada united in 1819 into a single state - Gran Colombia.
In 1824, after a long war of liberation, Mexico became an independent republic.
“Independence is the only good we have achieved...” In an effort to strengthen the independence of the young Latin American states, Bolivar advocated their unification into a confederation. He constantly fought for the creation of a democratic republic, where the color of the skin of its citizens would not affect their position in society. But it was not possible to unite the new independent states that had a common language and religion. Bolivar's power was overthrown in Peru and Bolivia, then Venezuela and Ecuador separated from Colombia. “Independence,” said Bolivar, “is the only good that we have achieved at the expense of all others.”
Bolivar's army crossing the Andes
Bolívar's influence and popularity declined, and at the beginning of 1830 he resigned. Only many years later his merits received universal recognition. The memory of him is preserved in the name of one of the South American republics - Bolivia.
The revolution in Portugal in 1820 led to a new rise in the independence movement in Brazil. Former colony declared independence and declared itself an empire.
In 1868, a massive uprising for independence began in Cuba. But for many more years the Cuban army had to fight for liberation from colonial dependence. The independent Cuban Republic was proclaimed only in 1895.
Results and significance of the liberation wars. The national liberation movement in Latin America ended in victory. In all independent states, except Brazil, a republican system was established (Brazil became a republic in 1889). But some states that were formed during the war for independence, due to deep internal contradictions and the struggle of various factions, turned out to be fragile and collapsed.
Political independence created more favorable conditions for the development of a capitalist economy and entry into the world market, but the preservation of many customs of traditional society slowed down this process.
In independent states, slavery was gradually abolished, the poll tax and forced labor service of the indigenous population in favor of private individuals, the state and the church were abolished, a parliamentary system was established and constitutions were adopted.
Of no small importance was the destruction of the Inquisition, the class system and the abolition of noble titles.
The national self-awareness of Latin Americans also strengthened; they began to feel that they belonged to a certain nation, which has the right to create an independent state.
A number of scientists believe that the liberation wars had the character of a bourgeois revolution. But there is another point of view that denies such an assessment, since the creation of new republics did not bring new classes to power. The peasants did not receive land, but the owners of the latifundia retained huge estates and political power.
The process of modernization in Latin American countries developed extremely slowly.
Century of the Caudillo. After the war of independence, peace was not established in the political life of the young states. They began to fight against each other to seize more territories. This was accompanied by an intense struggle for the presidency within each individual country. As a rule, power fell into the hands of military or civilian leaders during the Revolutionary War, who seized it by force of arms. Such a leader - a caudillo - relied either on the people or on the landowners.
In Latin American society, as you know, the relationships between people retained the ties characteristic of traditional society. This was expressed in the dominance of clan ties between the patron (master) and the masses subordinate to him. Typically, clan ties are stronger than class ties.
The essence of this phenomenon is that a circle of people rallies around a strong personality, hoping to solve their problems with the help of a patron. IN political struggle the personal qualities of the leader, his ability to control the crowd, winning their trust, came to the fore. Under these conditions, friendly ties become more important than the law. This relationship is expressed by the principle: “Everything is for friends, and for enemies it is law.”
Often, behind the mask of a “crowd favorite,” ambition and fierce rivalry between individual families were hidden.
In the 19th century Constant coups d'etat, rigged elections and bloody civil wars began.
Slow economic development. Decades internecine wars had a disastrous effect on economic condition young states. Their economy was focused mainly on the production and export abroad of agricultural products or minerals - copper and silver. However, in the middle of the 19th century. a number of countries are being drawn into the global market.
Chile actively exported silver, copper ore, and saltpeter to Europe. Between 1880 and 1910 The country's industrial production grew by 2% annually.
By the end of the century, more favorable conditions for the development of livestock and agriculture were created in Argentina. The impetus for the development of livestock farming was the creation of freezing plants and an increase in the capacity of the English domestic market. Argentina actively exported frozen meat to European countries, with 2/3 of it being supplied to London.
The abolition of slavery and the influx of immigrants created the conditions for the development of a capitalist economy in Brazil. The main source of income by the beginning of the 20th century. exports of coffee, gold, silver, natural rubber and tropical fruits remained.
Gold and silver were exported from Mexico, and coffee and indigo (a dye) from Colombia. Industrial enterprises and railways under construction ended up in the hands of foreign capital.
According to the level of economic development by the beginning of the 20th century. the countries of the Latin American region looked as follows: the group of the most developed countries consisted of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile; Bolivia, Mexico and Peru were much more backward, where huge masses of landless, enslaved peasantry remained. In fact, the economic system of colonial times, based on the dominance of large landowners, dominated here.
Latin American melting pot. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. in Latin America on a huge area of 20.6 million square meters. km lived 60 million people (in 1820 - 20 million). There were 20 independent states here.
In 18 countries the population spoke Spanish, in Brazil - in Portuguese, in Haiti - in French.
The 19th century was the time of formation of Latin American nations. They were formed from representatives of different peoples living within the borders of one state. As in the USA, there was a “melting pot” here, in which various races and nations mixed: Indians, blacks, people from Spain and Portugal, and others European countries, and then new immigrants.
Society in Latin American countries was formed under the influence of Spanish and Portuguese traditions; there has always been a hierarchy in the system of relations between people. Everyone had to know their place, their clan, and connect their well-being with the “big” or “small” patron, the caudillo. Hence the tendency towards authoritarian regimes.
A special society has formed in Latin America, different from both European and North American. Decades of bloody internecine wars, dictatorial regimes, mass protest movements that at times developed into revolutions, movements for democratization - all this made the history of Latin Americans in the 19th century tragic.
At the same time, in the most developed countries of Latin America, a process of modernization was taking place, industry was developing, and social structure society, political and social reforms were carried out. The greatest achievement of the Latin Americans was the abolition of slavery.
The riches of the continent lead to the active penetration of foreign capital into its economy, which gives rise to new contradictions. At the turn of the century Latin America emerges from a state of political and economic isolation.
1. Show on the map the colonies of European countries in Latin America. 2. Describe the composition of Latin American society at the beginning of the 19th century. 3. What reasons underlay the liberation wars in the first quarter of the XIX V.? 4. Describe Simon Bolivar as a political figure. 5. In your notebook, make a plan for answering the question: “What are the results and significance of the liberation wars?”
1. Discuss with your classmates why such a phenomenon as caudilism developed in Latin America. 2. Compare the economic development of Latin American countries and the United States at the beginning of the 20th century. 3. Discuss with your classmates what were the features of the formation of Latin American nations. 4. Describe the features of Latin American society and the role of the Catholic religion in it, using additional material textbook.
Peculiarities of beliefs among Catholics in Latin America
The Catholic religion had a great influence on the formation of nations. Back in the 16th century. The church in Latin American countries set itself the goal of promoting the rapprochement of spiritual culture between the various groups that made up the population of the colonies (Spaniards, blacks, Indians, mestizos). Each group was encouraged to adopt a common faith and customs. In Mexico, for example, back in the 16th century. the cult of the Holy Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, was formed. This is how the cult of a local saint first arose, and then the church spread it throughout the country. Religious holidays and coronations created numerous occasions for the gathering of huge masses of people.
Religious processions, which gathered crowds of worshipers from all over the kingdom in one place, helped strengthen ties between the inhabitants of the country. And gradually the cult of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe united the inhabitants of Mexico: everyone who worshiped this saint was considered to belong to the Mexican nation. In general, the Catholic religion and the Catholic Church played a large role in the lives of Latin Americans. The Catholic Church, through its parishes, influenced 90% of the population of Latin America.
But since the traditions of Catholicism were established on a continent where the indigenous population were Indians, the Catholic religion in Latin America has a number of features. First of all this huge amount saints, whose sculptural images were zealously worshiped by the population. Scientists believe that the Indians, after the destruction of their idols by the colonialists, transferred to Catholicism their desire to worship “divine powers,” idolize them and even turn them into a simple amulet.
Stories about miracles and apparitions of saints have always circulated among various segments of the population. The fact is that in Latin American countries, since pre-Columbian times, it has been customary to use substances that cause hallucinations. This tradition spread from the Indians to the poor white population. Wanting to recover from illness and find out their fate, people took herbs at home altars, where there were a large number of sculptures of various saints.
Scientists explain this feature of beliefs by the combination of the cultures of the indigenous population and the colonialists who brought Catholicism. The pagan idols destroyed by the church were replaced with images of Christian saints, to whom they turned as needed with requests, and even demands.
Let's sum it up
You became acquainted with the different types of societies that formed in North and South America.
From the very beginning, the United States developed as a state of Europeans on American soil. North American society was formed as an industrial society. In the USA there was no omnipotence of the church; the country developed as a presidential republic, with all the democratic authorities inherent in this type of state. All this created conditions for the rapid development of the modernization process.
In the states of Latin America, the sprouts of democracy tried for a long time and difficultly to break through the prevailing norms of traditional society. Authoritarian regimes and caudilism stifled political freedoms.
Two Americas - two styles of life. Different traditions. Different culture. Different types of society.
Questions and assignments for Chapter IV
1. Discuss with your classmates why the development of states on the American continent took such different paths. 2. Express your opinion: were there any similarities in the history of the creation of the United States and states in Latin America? 3. The period of rapid industrialization of the country after the Civil War was called the “Gilded Age” by the American writer Mark Twain. What do you think he meant? Do you agree with this assessment? 4. Make a synchronistic table in your notebook “Main events in the USA and Latin America in the second half of the 19th century.”
|
Latin American countries |
||
5. You studied the chapter “Two Americas” and learned about the life path of a number of historical figures. Did any of them endear you to you? If yes, then what caused your sympathy for this person?
Creative works and projects
Creative work “Latin America is a melting pot.” Using the facts given in the textbook, additional literature, and Internet resources, write an essay on the proposed topic. Complete the work. What new things did you learn while working on the topic? What additional information would you like to know?
America is a melting pot
What you need to know about America first
Have you ever thought that the phrase “United States of America” is not a completely correct translation of the name of this country into Russian? The thirteen American colonies, which declared their secession from the British crown on July 4, 1776, were not a single state. Moreover, they were created at different times and by different forces - from Virginia, which was founded in 1607 by the London Company, to Georgia, which began with the charter of King George II signed in 1732. However, after independence was declared, the thirteen colonies decided to unite. Their union received a simple and uncomplicated name United States of America- that is, the United States of America. In fact, this is exactly what happened: a confederation of newly independent states emerged.
When compared with modern analogues, the newly formed union of former British colonies was a little reminiscent, on the one hand, of the CIS, created on the ruins of the USSR, and on the other, of the EU, now painfully experiencing integration. Over time, the United States, in addition to the thirteen states that originally formed the union, included thirty-seven more states and territories and one federal district. As decades have passed, the vector of state education has shifted towards greater federalism, and today the country is more of a federation than a confederation.
From a linguistic point of view, the name of the United States in Russian has not changed, although from a substantive point of view it has evolved significantly. And this is just a small example of inaccuracy. However, basic ignorance of the essence of the internal structure of America leads to much greater mistakes - to a misunderstanding of the logic of American political and everyday thinking, daily behavior, psychology and value system, and a misunderstanding of the historical, ethnic, religious and social self-awareness of ordinary Americans.
So, the current USA is a constitutional republic, gradually strengthening its federal principles to the detriment of the independence of the initially sovereign states. But there are some unshakable principles: each state in the United States has its own judicial, executive and legislative branches - and these are largely independent from the federal ones - its own constitution, its own budget and the right to collect its own taxes, its own police force, a unique internal administrative and territorial structure and etc. By the way, four US subjects - Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania - are still officially called Commonwealths, although this no longer distinguishes them from other states.
A significant part of US history is a constant search for a balance between the rights of federal power, which the states themselves created to coordinate certain general areas (for example, foreign policy or defense), on the one hand, and the rights of individual states, striving for reasonable but maximum independence from the federal center, on the other. The states do not forget that it was they who created the central power, and not vice versa. Unlike traditional states, America was created from the bottom up. For a long time there was no what is called a state here, and every town, every farm or stop lived according to its own rules and laws. Some American cities were essentially created by criminal groups. Winchester was the sheriff, Colt was the peacemaker. Only later did it become clear that the existing rules and laws needed to be harmonized and made common on the basis of consensus and competition. This is where the roots of Americans' passionate love for individual freedom and strong skepticism towards any power, especially central power, lie.
Until now, the laws of a particular state, the actions of its officials and the decisions of the authorities have an incomparably greater impact on the life of an ordinary American than any actions and decisions of the president of the country. The governor is the highest-ranking official who is directly elected by the residents of the state, which gives him independence from any owner of the White House, against whom, by the way, this state could vote in the presidential election. Let me remind you that in the USA the governor is elected by citizens, and the president of the country is elected by the states. The electoral system is a tribute to America's confederal origins: if it did not exist, the president would essentially be elected only by the four most populous states, which is unacceptable to Americans and, paradoxically, would weaken the unity of the country. The basis of the US government is the equality of the states in all major issues and their strong, almost confederal independence from the federal government.
Americans love the law, but they don't like government. They tolerate it, if you will, because it is a mechanism for enforcing the law - but only as long as it performs this function. The law in the USA is above power and above man, but below society, just as the government is below society. Americans do not particularly like governments - neither their own nor those of others, viewing them with considerable suspicion and considering them a necessary evil. They have long been convinced that “the best government is the one that rules the least.” It is difficult to find another country whose residents would mock their political leaders so much, constantly putting them in their place, controlling every step and even humiliating them.
America's tradition is strong control over government institutions by civil society and the media. Americans are ardent opponents of political monopoly, and monopoly in general: this country is built on constant competition, on balances, balances and checks not only in politics, but in all spheres of public life. Naturally, these mechanisms do not always work, but the constant search for compromise and coordination of interests are the most important features of the American mentality.
From the book Once Upon a Time in America author Bukina SvetlanaMelting Pot This time I invited them to my place. It’s not good to run around cafes: it’s noisy, you can’t really talk. We sat around the coffee table, drank freshly made coffee, discussed the art teacher's change at school, and waited for Susan. She was already late
From the book One-Story America author Petrov EvgeniyChapter 47 Goodbye America! It was fresh in New York, the wind was blowing, the sun was shining. New York was amazingly beautiful! But why does it become sad in this great city? The houses are so high that sunlight only reaches the upper floors. And all day long the impression remains that the sun
From the book Literary Newspaper 6272 (No. 17 2010) author Literary NewspaperDemyansk "cauldron" Biblioman. Book dozen Demyansk “cauldron” Alexey Ivakin. Landing mission-1942. In icy hell. – M.: Yauza, Eksmo, 2010. – 320 p. “...The paratroopers went on the attack three times. And three times the Germans repulsed them. And they themselves rose up to counterattack, knocking down those caught on
From the book Crises in the History of Civilization [Yesterday, Today and Always] author Nikonov Alexander Petrovich From the book Time Ch. author Kalitin AndreyChapter 13 Good-bye, America... “We will hang them for...” I flew to New York in January, as I had promised Alexander Grant, with whom I was definitely going to see to discuss the ending of the book. The brothers of the man who died in Moscow also asked me about this visit to the States.
From the book Top Secret author Biryuk AlexanderChapter 3. America starts the meal So, shortly before his death, mysterious in all respects, Rutland met with his son and told him everything that had accumulated in his soul over all the years of undeserved, in his opinion, ostracism from his beloved Intelligence Service.
From the book Literary Newspaper 6348 (No. 47 2011) author Literary NewspaperChapter 4. "SIS" and America So, it can be clearly seen that the British intelligence services from the very beginning of the Cold War were for the most part engaged in matters very far from problems of national security and the security in general of everything that needed to be secured for
From the book Literary Newspaper 6379 (No. 31 2012) author Literary NewspaperWho's in the cauldron? Who's in the cauldron? UNRESOLVED QUESTION Russians today need true democracy Andrey VORONTSOV Both public opinion polls and my own observations say that the majority of citizens of our country, Russian and non-Russian, do not trust the current government and
From the book Literary Newspaper 6401 (No. 4 2013) author Literary NewspaperSYRIAN CAULDRON SYRIAN CAULDRON War In the year and a half that has passed since the outbreak of the conflict in Syria, of course, society has learned something about this state. So, we now know that behind the war is the confrontation between the Alawite minority and the Sunni majority. AND
From the book Between Scylla and Charybdis [ Last choice Civilizations] author Nikonov Alexander PetrovichNorth-Western cauldron North-Western cauldron Alexander Simakov. Demyansk bridgehead. Confrontation. 1941-1943. - Veliky Novgorod: Printing Yard "Veliky Novgorod", 2012. - 464 p. - 1000 copies. With the glory of a soldier, since those immemorial days, We have fallen in love with the land recaptured in battle.
From the book America's Deadly Export: Democracy. The truth about foreign policy USA and much more by Bloom WilliamChapter 6. Why Russia is not America - But in America everything is not like that! In America, everything is completely different!.. You often hear such a phrase when you give your listeners numbers or graphs that show the dependence of the religiosity of countries on the degree of their economic development. They
From the book Economy in Lies [Past, present and future of the Russian economy] author Krichevsky Nikita AlexandrovichChapter 13 LATIN AMERICA It is a crime to be a SVV, a socialist in power (December 11, 2007) In Chile, during the 1964 presidential election campaign, in which Marxist Salvador Allende fought against two other major candidates well to his right.
From the book Collected Works author Kolbenev Alexander NikolaevichChapter 13. The “America” Red Herring With the advent of the global crisis in Russia in the second half of 2008, the idea was intensified in society that the reckless financial policy of the United States was to blame for all our troubles. In many ways this is true. However, to nod to my uncle -
From the book America: What would the world be like without it? by D'Souza DineshChapter 20. America, 2016 2016. A curfew has been introduced in the United States. The military came to power and are trying with all their might to restore constitutional order in the country. Heavily armed gangs, Hispanics and black African Americans cannot
From the book Crisis Management in Russia. What will help Putin author Sulakshin Stepan StepanovichChapter 4 America Doesn't Deserve Forgiveness I am a revolutionary dedicated to overthrowing the imperial system. Bill Ayers. “Enemy of the People” The terrorists who detonated the Pentagon bombs believed that they were doing nothing wrong. They believed that their actions were justified because America is
From the author's bookWho lit the Debaltsevo Cauldron? In the east of Ukraine there is an intensification of the military conflict, especially the military operation around the “cauldron” in Debaltseve. What are the reasons for the exacerbation? You need to understand what the strategies of the two opposing sides in eastern Ukraine are.
Melting pot model
In the 20s of the twentieth century, Angloconformism gave way to a new model of ethnic development of the “melting pot” or “melting crucible”. In the history of American social thought, this model occupies a special place, because the basic social ideal, which was that in a truly free, democratic society, people would strive to live among racially and ethnically mixed neighbors, existed in the United States for a long time." "This theory represents a variant of the theory of “amalgamation” that emerged immediately after the American Revolution, i.e. the free merging of representatives of various European peoples and cultures, along with the theory of Angloconformism, formed the theoretical core of the classical school of ethnicity in the United States of America. “Although Angloconformism in its various manifestations was the predominant ideology of assimilation, in American historical practice there was a competing model with more general and idealistic tones, which had its adherents from the 18th century, and then its successors.”
Articles about the term. It is associated with the title of the play by the British journalist and playwright I. Zanguill, who often came to the USA and knew the life of this country. The essence of the play “The Melting Pot” was that in the United States of America there was a fusion of different peoples and their national cultures, as a result of which a single American nation was formed. The main character of the play, a young immigrant from Russia, Horace Alger, looking from a ship that arrived in the port of New York, exclaimed: “America is the greatest melting pot created by God, in which all the peoples of Europe are fused... Germans and French, Irish and English, Jews and the Russians - all into this crucible. This is how God creates a nation of Americans.”
And in the future, I. Zanguill imagined the United States of America as a kind of gigantic “cauldron” capable of digesting and making homogeneous the entire mass of the newcomer population, multilingual and motley in many respects. The American researcher G. Morgan stated in his work “America without Ethnicity” that this “was the hope for America, the only way to transform millions of people with different attitudes, values and lifestyles into a homogeneous group with the goal of peaceful coexistence, regardless of their history.”
Lesa was staged at the Columbia Theater in Washington in October 1908 and was a great success. President T. Roosevelt, who was present at the performance, gave a high assessment of the play. The play was also supported by one of the political figures of that time, W. Brian, who liked the idea expressed by I. Zanguill. He, in particular, noted: “Great were the Greek, the Slav, the Celt, the Teutonic and the Saxon; but greater than them are the Americans, who combine the dignity of each of them.” After Washington, the play ran for 6 months in Chicago, and 136 performances were shown in New York. It was staged in many cities across the country, and in 1914 in London. As noted in the press of those years, the author of “The Melting Pot” emphasized that a genuine, real American must be an American of mixed descent.
At a time when the play was staged in many theaters across the country, the issue of immigration was hotly debated among the public and experts. In 1916, the Government Publishing Office published the report of a special commission chaired by W. P. Dillingham on immigration issues in 42 volumes. The central idea of the report was that immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe threatened American society and the core of the American nation, being a source of crime, various diseases and social conflicts. Regarding this report, a number of experts in the field of interethnic relations noted, “a forty-two-volume publication containing statistical data was compiled to prove the unworthiness of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe to become Americans.” I. Zanguill assured his readers that the arrival of “new” immigrants did not pose not only a threat, but also no cause for concern.
A few years later, Literary Digest wrote about Zanguill: “He used a phrase that will delay the restriction of immigration into America for a long time.”
And although not everyone in the scientific world liked Zanguill’s concept of a mixed American nation (it was actively rejected by such authoritative scientists as E. Ross and F. Steimer), this theory also found many admirers. For example, an article published in one of the magazines entitled “Plays That Make People Think” thanked Zanguill for drawing attention to a social problem that really existed in America, the issue of immigration. The article, in particular, noted: “No sane person will deny that the social future of the country depends mainly on the answer to this question. Zanguill's play was a success largely due to the presentation of the problem."
In other words, the term “melting pot” received its citizenship in the 20s of the twentieth century, becoming increasingly widespread both in public life and in science. “The melting pot” was called one of the main paradigms of ethnic development in the United States in the twentieth century. According to the American researcher A. Mann, “the very phrase “melting pot” has become a national symbol of this century.” In accordance with this paradigm, the formation of American national identity was supposed to follow the formula of “fusion”, “mixing” of all peoples, and it was assumed , both their cultural and biological confusion. The formulated theoretical concept had an apologetic character in the sense that it denied the presence of any conflicts in society - social or ethnic.
In general, the phenomenon of ethnic mixing of people from various countries and peoples was noted and recorded in literature back in the 18th century. Thus, Tom Paine, in his pamphlet entitled “The General Feeling,” written in 1776, noted that “Americans are not transplanted Englishmen. They are a mixture of many European peoples, they are a nation of immigrants." The image of the American people as a single nation with a special culture and traditions was developed by writers, publicists, poets, and writers after Paine. T. Payne’s idea was actively supported by the American writer of French origin J. Crevecoeur in “Letters from an American Farmer,” published in Europe back in 1782, where he drew attention to the fact that in America there is such a mixture of blood that cannot be found in any another country. He, in particular, wrote: “Here representatives of all nations are mixed into a new race of people.” And he saw the main path to this in interethnic marriages. “Who is he, American, this new man? - wondered
J. Crevecoeur. - He is not a European or a descendant of a European, therefore it is a strange mixture of blood that you will not find in any other country. I can point you to a family where the grandfather was English, and his wife was Danish, their son is married to a French woman, they have four sons, whose wives are representatives of different nations. He is an American..."
The passage quoted is an indication of the traditional approach to considering the problem of the American nation. Although Crevecoeur did not use the term “melting pot,” he nevertheless spoke of representatives of different nations fusing through the process of modernization into a new community of people and creating a new American culture. At the same time, as noted in the literature, Crevecoeur and his followers said almost nothing about what traditions, customs and habits would make up this new American culture.
The myth of Americanization created by Crevecoeur, according to G. Gerstle, consisted of four main provisions: firstly, European immigrants certainly wanted to part with the way of life of the Old World and become Americans; secondly, Americanization was quick and easy, since immigrants had no significant obstacles in its path; thirdly, Americanization “fused” immigrants into a single race, culture, nation, regardless of space and time; and fourth, immigrants perceived Americanization as liberation from Old World slavery, poverty, and coercion.
Life later showed how difficult the path of immigrants’ integration into American society turned out to be, and many of Crevecoeur’s provisions were not implemented in practice and turned out to be a myth. Nevertheless, the optimistic and progressive concept of the “melting pot” found its supporters in the 19th century. Thus, it was supported by one of the most influential intellectuals of the time, an American of English origin, R. Emerson. Great popularity at the end of the 19th century. also received a four-volume publication by T. Roosevelt (at that time a historian and writer) entitled “Victory over the West,” where the author wrote about the border, praised the strengthening of American power and the colonization of the West, and planned the use of force outside the continental borders of the United States to expand its sphere of influence. The book was admired and Harvard scientists wrote laudatory reviews of it. As N. Glaser noted in the article “The American Epic Poem: Then and Now,” published in the journal Public Interest in 1998, during the colonization of the West, T. Roosevelt “exalted the role of only one element of the American population, namely, English-speaking people and did not notice others, which undoubtedly indicates a lack of political correctness.”
However, the idea of the “melting pot” received its real theoretical form in the works of the leading American historian F.J. Turner. The American researcher J. Bennett, who studied the scientific work of F. Turner, noted that Turner was not the first to draw attention to the border factor as a unique driving force in the formation and development of the American nation. Even B. Franklin and T. Jefferson believed that the constant movement of immigrants to the West contributed to the growth of cities and the development of American democracy. A number of historians have also pointed out that American democracy was shaped as the frontier moved west. However, all these views, J. Bennett continued, had little influence on the American public opinion of those years; the country was not ready to accept the border hypothesis. The intellectual climate in the United States relative to her changed later and largely thanks to F. Turner.
F. Turner is the author of four books: “The Rise of the New West”, “The Significance of Sections in American History”, “The United States 1830 - 1850: the Nation and Its Sections”, “The Frontier in American History”. The latter is a collection of articles, the most famous of which is an article entitled “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” which sets out the scholar's credo on American ethnicity. The article was based on F. Turner's report, which he delivered at a meeting of the American Historical Association in 1893 and which became an event in the history of American scientific thought. The report emphasized that the evolution of a complex national identity was central to understanding American history, and that one of the most important factors without which American society cannot be understood is the frontier factor. “In the crucible of the frontier, the immigrants were Americanized, liberated, and mingled into an American race distinct from the Anglo-Saxon, both in national and other characteristics.” Thus, the scientist rejected the conclusions that were dominant at that time in the United States of the Anglo-Saxon school, which viewed the United States as a European civilization transferred to the New World.
Many late-nineteenth-century American historians educated at German universities accepted without question the idea that American institutions were fundamentally derived from Anglo-Saxon and ultimately Teutonic sources. A prominent representative of the Anglo-Saxon school was the influential American historian Herbert Adams, whose lectures F. Turner attended. Turner did not share his teacher's view that American institutions are European institutions.
Assessing the role of Europeans in the formation of American society, Turner believed that American institutions basically had much in common with European ones, with special emphasis on their differences. In his opinion, in order to survive in new conditions, a European had to adapt to these conditions. Gradually he triumphed over savagery, conquered the desert and transformed it. Thus, as the frontier moved westward, European influence diminished and civilization became American. The western regions of the continent, developed by settlers, were for Turner a melting pot (although this term was not used by the historian), where various European peoples mixed, overcoming localism, disunity and hostility. The American researcher R. Billington, in a book dedicated to F. Turner, wrote the following: “For Turner, the border was the main force in creating the American nation and instilling loyalty among its peoples.”
For many years, a significant number of American and European social scientists were influenced by Turner's theory. The secret of his popularity was that Turner did not simply draw attention, in contrast to previous historiography, to the importance of geographical and economic factors, but offered a historical explanation of American social development, based primarily on the unique conditions of the formation of the United States. F. Turner put forward the thesis about the special “creative” role of the colonization of “free” Western lands in the creation of American society and the “unique” ideals of American democracy.” Until the last days, wrote F. Turner, American history was largely the history of the colonization of the Great West. Availability of free land and continuous advance of settlements in
The West explains the development of America." In the beginning, the "frontier" was the Atlantic coast; it was the "frontier" of Europe. The movement of the "frontier" to the West meant a gradual removal from the influence of Europe and a steady increase in movement along the American path. "To study the movement of these people brought up under the influence of new conditions, their political, economic and social results means studying American history,” wrote F. Turner.
Turner and his followers based their analysis on the primary role of the geographical environment, the “environment.” This meant that the main determinant of the historical process was declared to be the geographical factor. This methodology was the basis for the theory of sections, with which Turner supplemented his concept. He defined its essence by the fact that when immigrants resettled, different geographical regions arose in front of them. There was an interaction between immigration flows and new geographic regions. The result was a combination of two factors, land and people, creating different societies in different sections.
Turner saw the United States as a federation of various sections (regions): the West, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Northwest, the East, the Atlantic Coast Section, New England, the South, and many others. The main strategies in their relationship were agreement and compromise. He saw sectional differences as the source of the future development of American society, in which diversity would remain, and it would be manifested in the socio-economic contrasts and competitions of different regions. “The importance of sections in American history is such,” wrote F. Turner, “that ... we should reconsider our history from the point of view of this factor.” Assessing Turner's theory, J. Highem noted the following: “He viewed the West as a huge melting pot of European peoples and his entire approach to American history can be understood as a way of asserting the primacy of the geographical factor over the racial and cultural. Turner's pluralism is the affirmation of sectional (regional) diversity as a dynamic principle in American life."
Turner's "sectionalism" was widely discussed among specialists. Some agreed with Turner's views, others refuted them.
F. Turner's interpretation of the "melting pot" concept was somewhat different from I. Zanguill's interpretation. If the latter believed that all immigrants without exception, national minorities - the British, Germans, French, Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, representatives of the black and yellow races - are susceptible to the action of the "cauldron", then F. Turner, speaking about the mixing of representatives of different nations , meant primarily “old” immigration.
At the end of the 19th century, when the migration movements in the United States had largely ended, Turner's "migration melting pot" gave way to the "urban melting pot." It was quite obvious that the main stage on which the ethnic development of America unfolded was its cities; their importance grew rapidly throughout the second half of the 19th century. and continued even more rapidly in the twentieth century. For example, at the end of the 19th century. - early 20th century Up to 80% of newly arrived immigrants settled in US cities. Here were the most favorable objective conditions for the assimilation of immigrants. However, large concentrations of immigrants of the same nationality in cities and their settlement in separate neighborhoods simultaneously stimulated ethnic unity, the activities of ethnic organizations, etc. The latter was accelerated by the fact that ethnic organizations switched to English and became similar in their activities to ordinary American organizations. Thus, ethnocentric currents developing in an urban setting, while remaining internally contradictory, generally contributed to assimilation.
The effectiveness of the “urban melting pot” was enhanced by the immigration policy of the US ruling circles and immigration legislation. According to the authoritative American sociologist M. Gordon, “some researchers interpreted the “open door” policy of the first third of the 19th century. as a reflection of the underlying belief in the effectiveness of the American "melting pot", the belief "that all can be absorbed and all can contribute to the formation of national character."
The theory of the “urban melting pot” was developed in the works of sociologist at the University of Chicago, founder of the Chicago school in the field of race relations theory R. Park. Under his leadership, as well as the active assistance of the leading American historian L. Wirth at the University of Chicago in the late 20s of the twentieth century. a course on problems of racial and ethnic relations was created for the first time, and a scientific counter-offensive was launched against Anglo-Saxon racists and supporters of 100% Americanization. In his well-known work “Race and Culture,” R. Park tried to consider the problem of immigrants and blacks in the context of the global process of assimilation, affecting both European nations and Asian races. As J. Highem wrote, “If we look closely at Park’s conceptual scheme, we will find an improved version of the classic American ideal of assimilation, carried on by some radicals who included both black Americans and immigrants in this process.”
With an emphasis on the urban lifestyle, R. Park emphasized that it is he who brings people together. He wrote: “... Every society, every nation and every civilization is a boiling cauldron and thus contributes to the fusion of races, as a result of which new races and new cultures inevitably arise.” The scientist believed that the process of assimilation would cover global scale and in this way a new world civilization will emerge. For him, the “melting pot” is the whole world. He put forward a model of a four-stage development of the process of interethnic interactions in any multiethnic state: contacts, conflicts, adaptation and assimilation were the final stage in the cycle of interethnic relations. Moreover, for R. Park, assimilation seemed to be a process in which not only the newcomer assimilated, adapting to new market conditions, but the society receiving him also changed.
Having passed the four-stage path of development, the national state, according to R. Park, will exhaust itself and the world will evolve towards the creation of a global cosmopolitan community. In this regard, he urged his colleagues to overcome national boundaries and learn to think in “global categories.” Describing Park's assimilationist vision, renowned race relations theorist P. L. Van den Berghe wrote: "The significance of the melting pot and the experiences of European immigrant groups in the industrial cities of North America in the late 19th century gave impetus to Park's Chicago school, which saw assimilation as the final phase "cycle of race relations". For a wide variety of reasons, assimilationism seemed the most acceptable liberal way of solving the problems of national minorities for the ruling classes of centralized bureaucratic states, both capitalist and socialist."
Representatives of Park's Chicago school were prominent scientists M. Gordon, A. Rose, G. Allport, R. Williams, O. Kleinberg and others. It was this school that laid the so-called tradition of liberal assimilationism, according to which the main path in solving the national problems of all states was defined as the path of assimilation of various peoples, “grinding and absorbing them into a single whole.” From the point of view of this concept, races and nations are dysfunctional in industrial societies, represent the legacy of previous eras and must ultimately disappear under the influence of urbanization, industrialization, and modernization.
The liberal academic establishment assigned great importance to the educational system in achieving the homogenization of society. It is significant that in 1927 the Presidential Address to the National Education Association emphasized: “The great American school system is the starting point of the melting pot.” It was the education system that should have been the main mechanism in the implementation of policies aimed at the assimilation of ethnic groups, a mechanism that would produce results in the shortest possible time. In addition, in achieving the ideal of the “melting pot,” its creators and followers saw the main path through mixed marriages, which were indeed the most important channel for the processes of natural assimilation. However, the attitude towards the fact of interethnic and interracial marriages on the part of followers of the “melting pot” model was different. If one part welcomed the participation of people, regardless of skin color, in the “melting pot”, as, for example, R. Emerson, to whom America seemed to be a state where the energy of the Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, people from all over Europe, as well as Africans, Polynesians, a new nation, religion, literature is being created, then a significant part did not leave room in the “melting pot” for black Americans, Indians, etc.
Existing data on the dynamics of the number of mixed marriages in the country before the beginning of the twentieth century. are very fragmentary and imprecise to fully judge the effectiveness of the “melting pot”. The lack of statistical data for the 18th century makes it impossible to determine the degree of assimilation of the population in the United States during this period. Subsequently, as a result of empirical research in one of the American states over a 30-year period of the 19th century. (1850 - 1880) it was concluded that the “melting pot” as a whole worked slowly during these years.
And in later periods there was also no data on the processes of ethnic mixing, which did not allow a clear picture of the results of integration. This has led some researchers to argue that the "melting pot" never existed. However, according to sociologist A. Mann, “millions of Americans of mixed descent knew differently. Interethnic marriages have happened and are happening, and anyone who doubts this should take a look around.” Intermarriage increased, for example, among endogenous Jews. Author of the article “Accumulation without assimilation?” E. Rosenthal gives the following figures: in the 30s of the twentieth century, the number of interethnic marriages among Jews was 6%, in 1957 - 7.2%, in 1960 - 11.5%. A 1953 study of Jews in Iowa found an intermarriage rate of 31 percent, causing some Jewish leaders to worry about maintaining their ethnic group. Biological assimilation affected the Irish and other ethnic groups. By 1960, more than half of Irish men had taken a woman of a different nationality as their life partner. According to American sociologist T. Sowell, the Irish have become so Americanized that some of them complain about the loss of their distinctive individual characteristics. Ethnically mixed marriages are typical for Italians and Poles, as evidenced by the following figures: in 1930, endogeneity among Italians was 71%, Poles - 79%. The picture became completely different in 1960: endogeneity dropped to 27% and 33%, respectively. An increase in the proportion of families with spouses of a different nationality also occurred among Asian peoples, in particular the Japanese. If in 1920 in Los Angeles, for example, only 2% of all marriages were mixed, then after World War II this figure rose to 11-12%, and by the end of the 1950s. amounted to more than 20%. As for the dynamics of the number of black-white marriages in the country for the first half of the twentieth century, there are no exact data, since in most states such statistics were not preserved or published. However, on average, the share of black-white marriages, according to the American sociologist E. Frazier, even in large cities until 1940 did not exceed 3%, and in the country as a whole was many times lower. On the eve of World War II, interracial marriage was still illegal in 31 states (16 in the South, 15 in the North and West).
Along with biological assimilation, which captured various ethnic groups and racial minorities to varying degrees, social and cultural assimilation occurred, but its development was also hampered by racial discrimination, ethnic prejudices and prejudices, which became especially acute during the economic crisis of 1929 - 1933. In many places, immigrants were fired first, sometimes before black Americans, leading to the isolation of various ethnic groups and the persistence of “foreign” ghettos. The Indians also suffered from the crisis. They were no longer given benefits, many of them went from the reservations to the cities in search of work. Racism intensified in the country, and there was a wave of physical violence against blacks and immigrants, which caused a reaction of ethnocentrism on the part of national minorities and immigrant groups. This trend continued during the Second World War, fueled by discriminatory measures such as hiring restrictions, despite the great need for immigrant labor. In general, the war period contributed to the influx of new ethnic groups, the improvement of their situation, etc. It was already mentioned above that during the Second World War, the United States entered into short-term agreements with Mexico on the use of Mexican workers, both in industry and agriculture farm. And Mexican immigrants benefited from the war boom, but they were still paid less than other workers for the same work. The American writer of Yugoslav origin L. Adamik wrote about this in his book “Nation of Nations,” published in 1945.
The most difficult situation during the Second World War was the situation of the Japanese national minority. The Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor naval base on December 7, 1941 caused a powerful anti-Japanese wave and prepared the majority of the population to make a decision to place the Japanese in camps. On February 19, 1942, F. Roosevelt signed an emergency law, according to which persons of Japanese nationality, including those who had US citizenship, were subject to eviction from their previous places of residence (mainly in California) and isolation. American military authorities forced the evacuation of the Japanese and placed them in concentration camps in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arkansas (the small part of the Japanese remaining in California were imprisoned). From March to November 1942, more than 100 thousand men, women and children were interned. The resettlement was carried out under the pretext of the need to protect the country from espionage activities of Japanese agents. The financial losses of the Japanese as a result of this essentially punitive operation amounted to about 400,000,000. dollars (taking into account the price level of 1942). According to D. Baska, a specialist from the Center for Military History of the US War Department, spy mania was to blame for many years of intensifying ideas about the growing expansionism of Japan and the resulting national security considerations. The forced removal of 1942 was one of the most tragic and unjust events in US national history. Many of its dark pages have still not been told.
The operation to establish concentration camps during the war for the “unreliable” did not stir up the American public and did not cause mass condemnation. Voices of protest, although they were heard, were isolated; almost all publications whipped up a negative attitude towards the Japanese, hysteria and hostility. The Japanese were periodically declared to be a potential threat to American security.
What was the Japanese attitude towards the war? One part of the minority put forward the following motive: “We ... are not able to influence events, just like the German-Americans on Hitler’s seizure of Poland or the Italians living in the USA on Mussolini’s war in Ethiopia.” Another part of the Japanese insisted that “they are Americans” and argued that the special treatment they received was unfair and even insisted on being drafted into the US Army to prove their patriotism towards their new homeland. Note that in 1942, all military personnel of Japanese nationality were discharged from the United States Army. It was not until January 1943 that Nisei (second-generation Japanese settlers) began recruiting into the army, and most Japanese soldiers sought every opportunity to prove their loyalty to the United States. In total, more than 300,000 Japanese Americans fought during the war. They were sent to the hottest spots. According to T. Sowell, “the tragic wartime experience was a turning point in the history of Japanese Americans.”
President F. Roosevelt, whose order was carried out in 1942, already in 1944 publicly defended the loyalty of the Japanese living in the United States. That same year, the US Supreme Court declared "the act of internment of Japanese who were American citizens unconstitutional."
After the liberation of the Japanese from the camps, their return to normal life was not easy. Despite the fact that many Japanese who fought in the US Army were awarded high awards, despite the very rapid reorientation of American policy towards Japan towards a strategic alliance - political, military, economic and psychological - the legacy of the war in the form of anti-Japanese sentiment in broad layers the American population continued to be affected for a long time. Many problems arose in restoring the economic position of the Japanese, especially in agriculture. White settlers, who seized Japanese plots in California during the war, tried in 1944 to prevent the return of the former owners to the places of their former residence and business activities.
The situation of German and Italian immigrants at the beginning of the war was complicated by their origins and their reaction to the war included a complex set of ethnic ties and attitudes. As John F. Kennedy noted in his book A Nation of Immigrants, at the beginning of the war only a small number of German Americans joined the pro-Nazi German-American Bund movement, many of them leaving once they discovered its true nature. They served bravely in the U.S. military during the war and successfully integrated into the American system. As for the majority of Italian immigrants, strong internationalist, anti-fascist sentiments prevailed among them during the war years. In general, World War II contributed to the bringing together of people of different races and nationalities on an anti-fascist basis, who fought together, worked in war production, etc. It is noteworthy that immigrants who sympathized with their native countries in peacetime fought against them in American troops. On this basis, some American scientists during the war years defended the thesis of the disappearance of ethnic groups and the achievement of homogeneity of society. Thus, the American researcher L. Warner wrote in 1945: “The future of American ethnic groups seems to be becoming problematic, it seems that they will soon merge.” We find a similar opinion in the book “Ethnic Americans”, in the preface to which the famous theorist in the field of interethnic relations I. Winger noted that immediately after the war, many Americans decided that all ethnic elements would merge into a single whole. But there were also opposing assessments of the development of ethnic and racial relations in the United States at that time. For example, the work "One America", published in 1945, pointed out that the melting pot "is a myth. America will continue to be a nation of heterogeneous people..." And some modern experts on ethnic processes believe that the influence of World War II on American attitudes towards ethnicity should be considered in the complex relationship of “pluralism” and “assimilation”. “During the war,” they write, “society attached great importance to instilling tolerance among people, developing an understanding of the essence of ethnic diversity and discrediting racism. At the same time, wartime propaganda placed special emphasis on the ideological unity of Americans and their devotion to their universal democratic values. Difference could be accepted solely because it was based on the assumption that unity underlies everything.”
In general, in American literature since the 20s of the twentieth century. The dominant opinion was about the successful development of the American nation according to the “melting pot” formula, the “mixing” of representatives of various nations, despite their ethnic and cultural differences. Sociologist R. Kennedy made some adjustments to the “melting pot” theory. Having studied marital behavior, namely ethnically mixed marriages in New Haven (Connecticut), she came to the conclusion that religion is decisive in marriage: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism. Assimilation took place within a certain system: the British, Germans and Scandinavians mostly married among themselves and rarely went beyond these ethnic communities; the next system was composed of the Irish, Italians and Poles; the third - Jews who married only within their ethnic community. Thus, R. Kennedy believed, we should abandon the idea of a single “melting pot” and move to the formula of a “triple melting pot”, which will determine American society in the future. “We should note,” she wrote, “that while strict endogamy is being lost, religious endogamy is being established and in the future will take place along religious lines rather than along national lines, as was the case in the past. If this is so, then the traditional single melting pot must give way to a new concept, which we define as the “triple melting pot.” The theory of American assimilation will take its place as a real reflection of what is happening to the various national groups in the United States."
The interpretation of the assimilation processes of R. Kennedy was supported by the theologian W. Herberg in his work “Protestant - Catholic - Jew,” where he also noted that “with the disappearance of ethnic communities, religious groups will become the main communities and identities in America.” Subsequently, the ideas of Kennedy and Herberg were developed in the book by R. Lee “The Social Sources of Religious Unity.”
However, the data cited by R. Kennedy on the number of mixed marriages concluded within the framework of the three above-mentioned religions refute her own concept. In 1870, Protestants (British, Germans, Scandinavians) married 99.11% within their system, Catholics (Italians, Irish, Poles) - 93.35%, Jews - 100%, then in 1900 these figures were respectively - 90.86%, 85.78%, 98.82%; in 1930 -78.19%, 82.05%, 97.01%; in 1940 - 79.72%, 83.71%, 94.32%, and in 1950 - 70.34%, 72.64%, 96.01%.
American researchers, in particular R. Alba, also pointed out the vulnerability of R. Kennedy’s point of view. In an article on the Catholic community, he cited the following data: 40 percent of Catholics born after the First World War married Protestants. Now Catholics, Alba wrote, make up one quarter of the country's total population, three quarters of them have married people of other faiths.
The scientist offered the reader his analysis of the dynamics of the growth in the number of mixed marriages among Italians, Germans, Irish and Poles during the period before the First World War and after the Second World War. Thus, according to his calculations, the number of marriages concluded outside one’s own group was: among Italians - 21 and 40%, Germans - 41 and 51%, Irish - 18 and 40%, Poles - 20 and 35%. On this basis, R. Alba comes to the completely opposite conclusion of R. Kennedy that “the increasing number of interreligious marriages among Catholics indicates a decrease in the importance of religious boundaries for the majority of the Catholic group.”
A different assessment of the nature and extent of assimilation was given by L. Warner and his colleague L. Srawl in the book “Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups.” Taking as a basis the factor of differences in cultural and physical characteristics between immigrants and their host society, the researchers constructed such an assimilation hierarchy, according to which representatives of the Caucasian race with a light type of appearance, primarily immigrants from Northern Europe, have the greatest opportunities for assimilation into American society. They are followed by representatives of the same race, but with darker skin and hair color - people from Southern Europe, etc. Next are various mixtures of the Caucasian race with other racial groups (for example, Mexican Americans). Representatives of the Mongoloid race have even less opportunity for assimilation, and persons belonging to the Negroid race have the least chance.
The lava pot in the United States proved effective in absorbing a large number of immigrants from different countries, speaking many languages, adhering to different traditions and customs, and professing different religions. Its results were especially evident in the spiritual life of individual ethnic groups and the country as a whole. In particular, the number of ethnic organizations decreased, but there were significant changes in them, their character changed. They were also subjected to assimilation and lost many ethnic features (in many cases, language and, to a large extent, original ethnic functions). Ethnic societies, while protecting the cultural autonomy of immigrants, at the same time promoted their rapprochement with the surrounding society.
As already noted above, the most significant, if not the most significant, element of the assimilation process is linguistic assimilation. National languages were increasingly replaced by English, and their use declined, although at different rates in different groups. The importance of printed publications in national languages decreased. If in 1910 there were 70 German magazines in America, then in 1960 there were only 60 of them left. The publication of newspapers in the Hebrew, Scandinavian and Italian languages was reduced. The number of Italian magazines decreased from 12 (that’s how many there were at the beginning of the century) to 5 in 1960. During the same period, the publication of French magazines decreased from 9 to 1. Immigrants used their native language less and less in such an important institution as the church . The transition to English monolingualism was facilitated by the growth of mass media and other factors. Naturally, all this to a certain extent consolidated the US population. For the period 20 - 60 years. In the twentieth century, the trend of assimilation and integration was dominant in the United States. This was stated by the leading American scientist S. Steinberg in the book “Ethnic Myth”: “For decades, the dominant trend among ethnic groups and racial minorities was the tendency towards integration into economic, political and cultural life.” A significant number of recent immigrants and their descendants, especially those in mixed marriages, lost ties to their ethnic group and, during surveys and censuses, found it difficult to determine their ethnic origin by their ancestral people and referred to their American origin as such. As T. Sowell wrote, “social attitudes toward race and ethnicity changed significantly, especially after World War II. Mixed marriages among the Irish, Germans and Poles exceeded 50%, the same can be said about the Japanese... Millions of Americans cannot classify themselves as belonging to any group, since they were mixed from generation to generation.”
Along with the processes of assimilation and integration in American society in the 60s, there was an increase in ethnic and cultural self-determination of ethnic groups and minorities. According to a number of American scientists, as for blacks and other non-white citizens, they remained outside the “melting pot”, occupying the position of “second-class” citizens. “African Americans and Native Americans, (i.e., Indians - Z. Ch.), - wrote F. Burke, - regardless of how they dress, what they eat, what cult they profess, they are denied access to the 'melting pot' “because of color or history.” Civil rights activists began to demand the integration of blacks and other national minorities into American society on the basis of equal rights in socio-economic and political life. The increased activity of representatives of racial and ethnic groups made it necessary to continue the development of the theory of interethnic relations, since the paradigms established in American theoretical science were called into question. Realities changed, and the “melting pot” was replaced by a new paradigm - “cultural pluralism.” As A. Mann noted, theories may come and go, but ethnic diversity remains an important factor in American life. But objective conditions for a “melting pot” still exist today - the entry of immigrants into economic and social life, the settlement of new arrivals in cities, migration of the population within the country and widespread interethnic communication. Thus, the problem of the “melting pot” is still relevant in scientific terms today.