State University of New York Press

Chapter Title: ETHNIC ADAPTATION

Book Title: Ethnic Studies

Book Subtitle: Issues and Approaches
Book Author(s): Philip Q. Yang
Published by: State University of New York Press. (2000)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.18254093.10

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

State University of New York Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Ethnic Studies

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHAPTERS
ETHNIC ADAPTATION

10) uilt on past and continuous immigration, the United States is proba-
JlJ)bly the most diverse nation on earth, with people who have origi-
nated from almost every country in the world. The interaction or adapta-
tion of different ethnic groups has always been at the hub of ethnic
relations. This chapter begins with a brief description of the history of im-
migration to America. The main thrust of the present chapter is a review
of major theoretical models concerning the processes and outcomes of
ethnic interaction in America. The chapter introduces the main ideas of
these theories, shows their logical development, and assesses their valid-
ity. It also briefly discusses which direction America should head toward
in ethnic interactions and relations of the future, especially concerning
the issue of intergroup unity versus separation.

A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS

In 1958, then-Senator John F. Kennedy (1958) called America "a nation of

immigrants" in his book of the same title. Ever since, this phrase has be-
come a well-known label describing our diverse nation. This tag was, and
increasingly is, a precise descriptor of American population because
everybody in America is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants
whose origins can be traced to somewhere else.

77

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 78/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

In the past, Native Americans were not viewed as immigrants since

they were the aborigines or natives of this land. However, significant
changes have taken place in recent years. For instance, a recent book by
Abram Jaffe (1992) proclaimed Native Americans "the first immigrants."
Social studies teachers at elementary schools have started to instill stu-
dents with this notion. Despite the lack of definite archeological evi-
dence, a widely accepted theory maintains that the ancestors of Native
Americans crossed the Bering Strait from northeastern Asia to North
America through a land bridge (Beringia) that connected the two conti-
nents between perhaps about 28,000 B.C. and about 10,000 B.C. Several
different human groups from northeastern Asia-the northern Chinese,
Japanese, Mongolians, and Siberians-walked across the land bridge at
different times. l The land bridge began to disappear beneath the sea in
about 10,000 B.C. as rising temperature caused the glaciers to melt. At the
time of Beringia, there also existed the Mammoth Steppe, a vast northern
grassland that extended from interior Alaska to the west and south of the
Urals and perhaps as far as present-day Ireland (Guthrie and Guthrie
1980). People could wander back and forth across the Mammoth Steppe.
The natives lived in Alaska by 25,000 B.C. and moved further to South
America by 15,000 B.C. (Spencer, Jennings et al. 1977).
In 1492, funded by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain,
Christopher Columbus, an Italian sea captain from Genoa, "discovered"
the continent of America. He named the people he met on a tiny
Caribbean island "los Indios" (Indians). His voyage set European explo-
ration of North America in motion.
The white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) from England were the
first major European group to settle in America. 2 Between 1607 and 1733,
they established the thirteen English colonies (Virginia, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia), which later formed the United States of America. They brought
the English language, English customs, Protestantism, and other English
cultural traditions to America. Following the English model, they estab-
lished their preferred social institutions including the economic system,

1. The northeastern Asian origins of Native Americans were supported by dental ev-
idence provided by Turner (1983, 1987).
2. The term "Anglo-Saxon" is sometimes used loosely to refer to the British groups
including the English, the Scottish, and the Welsh. Sometimes, Anglo is a synonym for
white.

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation /79

political system, legal system, and educational system. In short, the

WASPs established the dominant culture and social institutions to which
other groups had to adjust.
In 1619, the English settlers began to import Africans, first as inden-
tured servants and later as permanent slaves. As discussed in chapter 4,
the first twenty blacks were sold to Virginia as indentured servants. As
slave trade expanded, more Africans were sold into bondage.
Somewhat later than the English, other groups from western and
northern Europe, such as the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, the Irish,
Scots, Welsh, and the French also came to settle in America. The immi-
gration of these western and northern Europeans is normally referred to as
"old immigration."
Starting in 1848, large numbers of Chinese arrived as a result of the
Gold Rush in California. Racism, economic competition, and politicians'
opportunism led Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882,
which suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years and
deprived Chinese immigrants of the right of U.S. citizenship. The 1882
Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 for ten ad-
ditional years and extended indefinitely in 1904; it was not repealed until
1943.
After the 1882 Chinese exclusion, Japanese laborers were brought in
as a replacement of Chinese laborers. They were later excluded from im-
migration as a result of the 1907-1908 Gentlemen's Agreement between
the U.S. and Japanese governments; simply, the Japanese government
promised not to issue additional passports to Japanese laborers in ex-
change for the U.S. government's permission for the Japanese laborers al-
ready in the United States to stay and to bring their families over.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, many im-
migrant groups from southern and eastern Europe immigrated to
America, such as Italians, Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Russians, Greeks,
Portuguese, Slavic peoples, Gypsies, Armenians, and so forth. This wave
of immigration from eastern and southern Europe is usually referred to as
"new immigration."
In the 1840s, part of Mexico was annexed to the United States mainly
as a result of the Mexican-American War, and consequently some Mexi-
cans became U.S. residents. The bulk of Mexicans started to pour in as
political refugees following the Mexican Revolution in 1918, and they
were followed by economic immigrants.
Starting in the early nineteenth century, significant numbers of Fili-

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 80/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

pinos, Koreans, and Asian Indians were brought in by plantation owners

and other employers to fill the vacancy left by Japanese laborers and to
"divide and conquer" Asian laborers. The immigration of most Asian la-
borers was effectively banned after the Immigration of Act of 1917, which
established a so-called "Asiatic Barred Zone."
Although Puerto Rico became a U.S. possession in 1899, significant
Puerto Rican immigration to the U.S. mainland did not begin until the
late 1920s and continued during the next several decades. The migration
of the bulk of Cubans to the United States occurred after the Cuban
Revolution in 1959 that overthrew the Fulgencio Batista regime and gave
power to Fidel Castro.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 opened a new page in
U.S. immigration history and provided more equal opportunities for im-
migration to people of all countries. For quota immigrants, a 20,000 per
country annual quota was allocated to all Eastern Hemisphere countries
effective in 1968 regardless of population size, and was extended to all
Western Hemisphere countries in 1976. In addition, immediate relatives
of U.S. citizens were not subject to the per country annual quota. In the
post-1965 period, immigrant groups have come from many parts of the
world, but Latin America and Asia have sent the majority of new immi-
grants to the United States. Among the largest new immigrant groups are
Mexicans, Filipinos, Chinese, Vietnamese, Dominicans, Asian Indians,
Cubans, Jamaicans, Koreans, Salvadorans, and other Indochinese. In re-
cent years, immigration rates from the former Soviet Union, Poland, and
Ireland have also risen.
Table 5.1 shows the numbers and percentages of immigrants by con-
tinent and from the top twenty immigrant-sending countries from 1820 to
1995. In these 176 years, about 61 percent of immigrants originated from
Europe, about 25 percent from North and South Americas, some 12 per-
cent from Asia, less than 1 percent from Africa, and even less from
Oceania. The top twenty sending countries include many European na-
tions, Mexico, Canada, several Asian countries, and a number of other
Latin American countries.
Immigrants to the United States have originated from almost every
country on earth. Each group came to America with its own culture and
preferred social institutions. Each new group has had to interact with the
dominant group and other groups, and it has had to adapt to the culture
and social institutions of the host society. An important question is: What
are the process and outcomes of ethnic adaptation or interaction?

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation /81

Table 5.1. Numbers of Immigrants by Continent and from the Top 20

Sending Countries, 1820-1995

Continent/Country Number Percent

Continent
Europe 37,865,895 60.9
North and South America 15,779,241 25.3
Asia 7,593,997 12.2
Africa 482,608 0.8
Oceania 234,940 0.4
Not specified 267,646 0.4
Country
Germany 7,134,028 11.4
Italy 5,424,543 8.7
Mexico 5,378,882 8.6
United Kingdom 5,210,137 8.3
Ireland 4,776,548 7.7
Canada 4,401,315 7.1
Austria-Hungary 4,358,398 7.0
Soviet Union 3,690,916 5.9
Norway-Sweden 2,155,710 3.5
Philippines 1,324,815 2.1
China 1,125,679 1.8
Cuba 813,927 1.3
F rance 806,786 1.3
Korea 734,202 1.2
Dominican Rep. 728,684 1.2
Greece 716,404 1.2
Poland 716,388 1.1
India 638,150 1.0
Vietnam 606,341 1.0
Jamaica 517,488 0.8
Grand total 62,224,327 100.0
Source: INS (1997).

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 82/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

APPROACHES TO ETHNIC ADAPTATION

Many theories have been formulated to portray the process and outcomes
of ethnic interactions or relations. This section introduces the most influ-
ential ones, including the Anglo-conformity perspective/assimilation the-
ory, the melting-pot perspective, the cultural pluralism perspective, the
ethnogenesis perspective, the internal colonialism perspective, and the
class approaches.

The Anglo-Conformity Perspective/Assimilation Theory

An ideology that had been prevalent for a long time in the thinking and
practice of America is the Anglo-conformity perspective. Historically,
Anglo-conformity was strongly promoted after the Revolutionary War and
World War I. Early in this century, President Theodore Roosevelt force-
fully argued that Anglo-conformity was the ideal toward which we should
strive. Anglo conformity means conforming to the Anglo culture and insti-
tutions-the dominant and standard way of American life. Assimilation
theory is another term for the Anglo-conformity perspective. Unlike the
terms integration and adaptation, assimilation implies a one-directional
change, or absorption of one group or culture by another.
The basic idea of the Anglo-conformity perspective or assimilation
theory is that after many generations, all immigrant or ethnic groups will
inevitably and completely assimilate into the dominant Anglo culture and
institutions. That is, each new immigrant group will eventually lose its
cultural traditions and social institutions; learn the dominant group's lan-
guage (i.e., English), norms, values, behavior, customs, laws, and world
view; and become incorporated into the dominant economic, political,
legal, and education systems. Ethnic interaction results in a total absorp-
tion of the new immigrant group by the dominating group. The basic idea
is graphed in Figure S.la.
How does assimilation take place? There are differing descriptions.
The two most influential models are Robert Park's Race Relations Cycle
and Milton Gordon's stages of assimilation. Park's theory, developed in
the 1930s, represents one of the earliest formulations of the assimilation
process. Park (1937) outlined four stages of the so-called "race relations
cycle" : (1) Different groups come into contact through migration or explo-
ration. (2) Contact sets in motion a competition between different groups
for scarce resources such as land, water, and capital, and competition often

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figure 5.1. Three Perspectives on Ethnic Adaption

ORIGINAL CULTURE SYSTEM

TIME
CULTURE SYSTEM AFTER ADAPTION

Adaption over Generations

~____H_O_S_T____~I • ~I_____ H_O_S_T____ ~

~_I_M_M_I_G_RA ~I ~
Figure s.la
__N_T
__
Anglo-conformity perspective

HOST
COMMON
IMMIGRANT

Figure 5.1 b Melting pot perspective

HOST HOST

r------1.~ IMMIGRANT
IMMIGRANT

Figure s.lc Cultural pluralism perspective

Source: Andrew Greeley, Ethnicity in the United States, John Wiley and Sons, 1974.

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 84/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

causes conflict. (3) Competition and conflict are followed by a temporary

accommodation stage in which conflict subsides and a dominant group and
a subordinate group emerge. Laws, customs, and rules are established to
regulate intergroup conflicts and relations. (4) The final outcome of group
interaction is assimilation of smaller or weaker groups into a larger or dom-
inant one. Park (1937) maintained that the four-stage cycle is universally
applicable, and the sequence is "apparently progressive and irreversible."
In spite of its contribution, Park's model has been subject to much
criticism over the years. Critics assert that the cycle is not universally ap-
plicable, may be incomplete, and may be reversible; and that the outcome
of contact may not be assimilation, but exclusion, pluralism, or continuous
ethnic stratification.
Another well-known model is Milton Gordon's seven stages of assim-
ilation. In his now-classic book Assimilation in American Life published in
1964, Gordon (1964) suggested that assimilation normally goes through
seven stages: one, cultural assimilation, also termed acculturation, a
process in which members of an immigrant group relinquish the language,
customs, traditions of their own group and acquire the culture of the dom-
inant group; two, structural assimilation, or assimilation into religious insti-
tutions, social clubs, cliques of friends, peers, and neighborhoods, as well
as economic, social, political, legal, and educational institutions and organi-
zations;3 three, marital assimilation (amalgamation), or large-scale inter-
marriage; four, identificational assimilation, or development of a sense of
peoplehood based solely on the host society; five, attitude receptional
assimilation, or absence of prejudice; six, behavioral receptional assimila-
tion, or absence of discrimination; and last, civic assimilation, or absence
of value and power conflict.
However, empirically, even after many generations, probably no eth-
nic group has totally assimilated into Anglo culture and institutions, de-
spite the fact that many groups, to varying degrees, have become partly
assimilated. More importantly, the idea of Anglo-conformity reflects a
perceived superiority of Anglo culture and institutions over others'. In ad-
dition, the Anglo-conformity model implies a static nature in the domi-
nant Anglo culture. As a result, by the 1960s many scholars had rejected
the idea that assimilation is inevitable or desirable (see Yinger 1961).
3. Note that Cordon is too limited in restricting structural assimilation at the primary
group level. Both primary structural assimilation, interaction in close, personal settings,
and secondary structural assimilation, interaction in impersonal settings, should be part of
structural assimilation.

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation /85

Another model, melting-pot theory, began to catch widespread attention

at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The Melting-Pot Perspective

The "melting pot" has been a very popular image of American society. It
was popularized by a play, The !lle/ting Pot, written by English-Jewish
writer Israel Zangwill and presented on Broadway in 1908. The underly-
ing idea of melting-pot theory is that as a result of ethnic interaction, both
the host group and the immigrant group will blend together culturally and
biologically, creating a new group called "American" and a new culture
called "American culture." America is analogous to a big pot, and differ-
ent ethnic groups and cultures are just like different ingredients. They
are all melted in the same cauldron. Both the host group and culture and
the immigrant group and culture disappear, and both contribute to the
new group and new culture, as shown in Figure S.lb.
The melting pot is certainly a very appealing idea. It is free from the
ethnocentric pigment of Anglo conformity and represents equal relation
between ethnic groups. Furthermore, it symbolizes dynamic and progres-
sive changes in society. It is surely an ideal.
Is America a melting pot? Does the melting pot accurately describe
what has occurred in America? Few scholars today have given an affirma-
tive answer to these questions. As Lawrence Fuchs (1990, 276) stated,
" 'Melting pot' was not and never had been the best metaphor to describe
the dynamics of ethnic diversity and acculturation, certainly not for
Indians or blacks, not even for immigrants and their children." Although
the melting process occurs within certain boundaries, it has yet to happen
in the big national pot (see, for example, Hirshman 1983). Look at inter-
marriage, the avenue through which biological blending befalls. A pio-
neer study by Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy (1944) of intermarriage from
1870 to 1940 in New Haven found that white intermarriage occurred
across nationality lines but seldom crossed religious lines. Intermarriage
tended to occur within each of the three religious groups-Protestants,
Catholics, and Jews. She labelled this phenomenon a "triple melting
pot." Rigid religious lines of intermarriage have loosened in contempo-
rary times; nevertheless, racial lines of intermarriage are still difficult to
traverse today, despite the evidence that the numbers of interracial cou-
ples have gradually risen in the past two decades. What about cultural
blending? No evidence has indicated that the dominance of Anglo-Saxon

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 86/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

Protestant culture in American culture has fundamentally changed, al-

though some new elements from other cultures have been added. The
entry of many diverse immigrant groups into American society has not led
to new social structures or new social institutions.
In short, available evidence suggests that the single-melting-pot
model does not capture American ethnic verity. Today, most researchers
consider "the melting pot" a myth rather than a reality. It is unrealistic,
and it has never been found in practice. A more accurate descriptor of
American reality may be "multiple melting pots" or more precisely a
"salad bowl."

The Cultural Pluralism Perspective

While Anglo-conformity theory and melting-pot theory prescribe the ho-

mogenization process of ethnic interaction, the cultural pluralism per-
spective emphasizes the differentiation process of ethnic interaction. The
basic idea (Figure S.lc) is that ethnic interaction over time will result in
the coexistence of the dominant culture and the ethnic culture. That is,
after interaction, the ethnic or immigrant group preserves its own culture,
but it also to some extent acquires the dominant culture (e.g., learns to
speak English as the common language of communication, follows the
norms and values of society, and participates in the overall economic and
political life of the nation). Cultural diversity is the outcome.
In recent decades, there have appeared other metaphors that express
the same or similar idea of cultural pluralism. One is "multiculturalism,"
which connotes the existence, mixture, and penetration of many cultures.
"Mosaic," a picture made of many small pieces of mixed, colorful stone,
glass, etc., is another metaphor that conveys the similar idea. "Salad
bowl," another comparable metaphor, vividly depicts the idea of inter-
mingling and coexistence without melting within the common cauldron.
For Fuchs (1990, 276), "salad bowl" is not an appropriate metaphor be-
cause "the ingredients of a salad bowl are mixed but do not change." To
capture the dynamic nature of ethnic relations, he suggests the metaphor
"kaleidoscope," which is complex and varied in form, pattern, and color,
and continuously shifting from one set of relations to another. A common
theme of these metaphors is that a positive whole is produced by parts
that are very different.
Does cultural pluralism reflect American reality? The answer is yes.
Cultural pluralism has always accompanied America, from the colonial pe-

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation /87

riod to the birth of the nation until now. Cultural pluralism springs from
religious diversity, to language diversity, and to diversity of ethnic institu-
tions and organizations. As Milton Gordon (1961) put it, "Cultural plural-
ism was a fact in American society before it became a theory-a theory
with explicit relevance for the nation as a whole." Historically, cultural
pluralism was not a reigning ideology of ethnic interaction. However,
there is indication that it will be in the future.

The Ethnogenesis Perspective

The ethnogenesis perspective proposed by Andrew Greeley (1974) is an

integration of assimilation theory, melting-pot theory, and cultural plural-
ism theory that incorporates the ideas of partial assimilation, partial reten-
tion of ethnic culture, and the modification and creation of ethnic cultural
elements in the same framework. Literally, "ethnogenesis" means "the
creation of ethnic groups" or "ethnicization." The main argument of this
perspective is that over time, immigrant groups will share more common
characteristics with the host group, but they still, to varying degrees, re-
tain and modify some components of their ethnic culture, and they also
create new cultural elements in response to the host social environment
by incorporating their own culture and the host culture.
Figure 5.2 presents the complex model of the ethnogenesis perspec-
tive for intergroup adaptation. According to Greeley (1974), at the begin-
ning the host group and the immigrant group may have some things in
common. For instance, the Irish could speak English, and some groups
were Protestants. As a result of adaptation over generations, the common
culture enlarges. The immigrant group becomes similar to the host group,
and the host group also becomes somewhat similar to the immigrant
group. However, the immigrant group still keeps some elements of its
culture and institutions, modifies some of its cultural and social structural
characteristics, and creates some new cultural elements in response to the
challenge of the host society. The result is a new ethnic group with a cul-
tural system that is a combination of the common culture and its unique
heritage mixed in the American crucible. Similar to the cultural pluralism
perspective, the ethnogenesis perspective embraces the ideas of partial
assimilation and ethnic cultural preservation, but it differs from the cul-
tural pluralism perspective in that it emphasizes cultural change and the
creation of new ethnic culture.
Empirical evidence abounds to support this theory. Partial assimila-

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ORIGINAL TIME CULTURE SYSTEMS
CULTURE SYSTEM OF ADAPTATION

Generations
Education (Common School, Mass Media)

HOST
-------
~
HO~
-COMMON--
~ ·• .
~
~IMMIGRANT- •
•
"~ ~~;~O";
• IMMIGRANT •
.
"l"l.
~. ETHNIC GROUP
...............•
Experience at Arrival II Subsequent Ex~erie~

HISTORY

Figure 5.2. Ethnogenesis perspective

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
 Ethnic Adaptation /89

tion into the dominant culture is an undeniable fact for every immigrant
group, especially European ones. Partial retention of ethnic cultures can
be found at all times for almost all groups. The modification of ethnic cul-
tural components is not uncommon. One example is Jewish Americans'
celebration of Hanukkah (sometimes also spelled Chanukah). Historically,
Hanukkah was not a very important Jewish holiday. However, American
Jews have elevated Hanukkah to a status somewhat equivalent to "Jewish
Christmas," partly because Hanukkah occurs very close to Christmas, and
partly because it is an opportunity to keep Jewish culture alive. Activities
during Hanukkah now resemble those of Christmas but with Jewish
uniqueness, such as giving gifts to children, festive gathering, sending
holiday cards, lighting and displaying candles in a menorah, and so on.
African Americans' invention of the Kwanzaa holiday is probably the
best example of the creation of ethnic cultural elements in response to the
host environment. "Kwanzaa" means "first fruits" in Swahili. The holiday
runs from December 26 to January I-parallel to the Christmas season. It
is a family-centered holiday related to traditional African harvest festivals.
During the holiday, African Americans light seven colorful candles (three
red, three green, and one black), each representing one of the seven val-
ues or principles: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsi-
bility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith (Madhubuti
1977). Each day, participants light one candle and discuss its principle.
Other items used for celebration include a unity cup for the pouring of li-
bations; fruits, representing the rewards of a harvested crop; and dried
corn, representing children and the future. African Americans exchange
simple gifts, preferably handmade. In Los Angeles, an annual Kwanzaa
parade is held.
The Kwanzaa holiday was created in 1966 by Ron Karenga (now
known as Maulana Karenga), professor of black studies at Cal State Long
Beach. Karenga invented this holiday because he believed that it was im-
portant for African Americans to have a holiday created by themselves in
order to bring African Americans, who have been torn from their cultural
roots since the slave trade, together to celebrate their heritage and their
achievements. It is a time to recommit to the holiday's principles. Today,
twenty million people of African descent celebrate Kwanzaa-including is-
landers of the Caribbean, South Americans, Europeans, and even Africans.
Some scholars maintain that assimilation theory, melting-pot theory,
the cultural pluralism perspective, and the ethnogenesis perspective may
well depict the adaptation experience of European groups, but may not

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 90/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

be able to explain the adaptation experience of minority groups such as

African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native
Americans. The reasons are twofold. First, the experience of the minority
groups is different from that of European groups, because of their differ-
ences in racial characteristics, national origins, and cultural traditions.
These minority groups suffer more prejudice and discrimination than
European groups. Some minority groups may not be allowed to assimilate
and may not be welcomed. Second, assimilation into the dominant cul-
ture and social structure may not be a desired outcome for minority
groups.
In order to account for the adaptation experiences of minority groups,
scholars have proposed theories of adaptation that depart largely from the
foregoing theories. These theories emphasize conflict, inequality, oppres-
sion, exploitation, discrimination, and resistance of subordinate groups to
the dominant group. Two influential approaches along this line are dis-
cussed below: the internal colonialism perspective and class approaches.

The Internal Colonialism Perspective

One well-known theory dealing with unequal, asymmetric, repressive in-

tergroup relations is the internal colonialism perspective. Internal colo-
nialism should not be confused with external colonialism. External colo-
nialism refers to the control of a country's economy and political system by
an external colonial power. External colonialism occurs outside one's na-
tional boundaries. An example is the colonization of America by Britain
before the founding of the United States. Internal colonialism, on the other
hand, refers to the subordination and oppression of minority ethnic
groups by the dominant group within a country. Internal colonialism does
not equate with ethnic enclaves such as Chinatown, Koreatown, or Little
Saigon. It does not require a spatial concentration. It is an analogy about
the relations between the dominant group and the minority group.
According to the internal colonialism perspective, the dominant
group is like the colonizer, and the minority group is like a colony or a col-
onized people. Although other processes also go on, the most important
characteristic of ethnic interaction or relations is that the majority group
colonizes, controls, and exploits the minority groups within a nation (see
Blauner 1972).
Advocates of this theory, notably Robert Blauner, provide historical
examples of internal colonization, oppression, subordination, exploita-

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation / 91

tion, and discrimination. For example, African Americans were enslaved

for more than two hundred years, and they were like a colony within
America. Native Americans were conquered, killed, and driven to reser-
vations; and they were like an internal colony in America. With land taken
from them, Chicanos were subordinated and treated as a colonized peo-
ple. In the nineteenth century, the Chinese were excluded from immigra-
tion, denied US. citizenship, and forced to seek refuge in Chinatowns in
isolation; they were nothing more than a colonized people. During World
War Il, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans on the US. mainland, over
two-thirds of them O.S. citizens, were treated as enemy aliens and were
incarcerated in concentration camps without trial for the "crime" of being
a Japanese. They were like an internal colony. To Blauner, internal colo-
nization best describes the adaptation experience of minority groups.
Abundance of historical evidence notwithstanding, it is unclear whether
and to what extent internal colonialism still applies to today's ethnic rela-
tions. While minorities tend to believe that there is at least some validity
in this model for today's society, many white Americans show reservations
or hesitancy about it.

The Class Approaches

To some theorists, ethnic relations cannot be understood solely by look-

ing at race or ethnicity, and class division is an even more dominant di-
mension. Talking only about repressive ethnic relations disguises the
more fundamental issues-class relations. A complete understanding of
the subject requires an analysis of ethnic relations in the framework of
class relations.
One of the first theorists who adopted a Marxist class approach was
William E. B. DuBois, a black scholar and civil rights activist. DuBois un-
derscored the inextricable connections between racial oppression and
class oppression. The interaction of the two dimensions explains the un-
equal relations between whites and blacks. Oliver Cox, who drew on the
ideas of DuBois, emphasized the role of class in racial oppression. In his
1948 book entitled Caste, Class and Race, which studied black-white rela-
tions in the South, Cox (1948) argued that the racial exploitation of black
Americans was essentially part of capitalist exploitation of labor. He
stated, "As a matter of fact, the struggle has never been between all blacks
and all white people-it is a political class struggle" (Cox 1948, 573).
Hence, the capitalist class's profit making and the need for cheap labor are

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 92/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

the root of racial/ethnic subordination. This approach tends to reduce

racial/ethnic oppression and exploitation to class oppression and exploita-
tion.
A contemporary version of the class approach is Edna Bonacich's split
labor market perspective (Bonacich 1972). This theory argues that in a
capitalist society, the working class and the capitalist class of the dominant
group do not share interests, nor do they benefit to the same extent from
the subordination of minority groups. According to Bonacich, the desire to
maximize profits motivates employers of the dominant group to recruit
minority group workers because they are cheaper, docile, less unionized,
and manipulatable by the capitalist class to break strikes organized by
dominant group workers. However, the recruitment of minority workers
hurts dominant group workers because they are more likely to be dis-
placed and to receive lower wages and less benpfits. To protect their own
interests, workers of the dominant group will try to exclude minority
group workers or, more frequently, to restrict their access to good, high-
paying jobs. The result is a split labor market: high-paying jobs for domi-
nant group workers on the one hand, and low-paying jobs for minority
group workers on the other. Hence, minority group workers suffer from
double discrimination-discrimination from both the capitalist class and
the working class of the dominant group. They are subordinate to both
classes of the dominant group. Nevertheless, the root cause of racial ex-
ploitation and subordination of minorities is the capitalist class's profit-
making drive.
We have reviewed a number of influential theories regarding ethnic
interaction and relations in America. It should be noted that there is no
single American experience. Different groups follow different trajecto-
ries. Hence, no single theory can explain the adaptation experience of all
groups at all times. Each theory may contain some partial truth, and each
garners some empirical support. Some theories fit the experience of
European groups while others fit the experience of other minorities. The
applicability of these theories also varies across different times and places.

COMING TOGETHER OR FALLING APART?

Is there an ideal model of ethnic interaction or adaptation for America?

What should be the direction of ethnic interactions or ethnic relations in
the near future? How should different ethnic groups interact with one an-

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ethnic Adaptation / 93

other? The answers to these questions naturally vary across individuals

and groups. In my opinion, a more ideal model can still be found in the na-
tional motto-e pluribus unum, namely unity in diversity, or unity based on
diversity.
Anglo conformity or assimilation is unity in a wrong way. Melting pot
is unity in mirage, if not in Utopia. Internal colonialism is not unity ori-
ented. Regardless of what approaches are taken, the following three prin-
ciples should be kept in mind when dealing with ethnic relations in the
future:

1. Equality. All groups should maintain equal relations. Any model

or practice that rests on the superiority and domination of one
group over another or on any other unequal relations between
groups is neither acceptable nor workable. Any notion, either
conscious or subconscious, that people of African, Asian, Latino,
and Indian origins or of a particular white ethnic origin are un-
American or less American is unacceptable and should be eradi-
cated.
2. Diversity. Ethnic diversity is an essential ingredient of American
national identity. Diversity is a basic fact in American life. We
can't ignore the tremendous diversity among ethnic groups in this
country. The negation of ethnic diversity is tantamount to os-
trichism. There is nothing wrong with ethnic pride and the
preservation of ethnic culture. America's strength is in the rich-
ness of its cultural diversity. We must learn to respect the cultures
of other groups, and we must learn to live with our differences.
3. Unity. Unity includes interethnic or interracial unity. All groups,
whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Indians, can and should work
together because of our common interests. We should not
overemphasize our differences because it could beget separatism.
Disunited, we fall. Unity also includes national unity. That is, all
groups should work together to maintain national unity. The im-
perative of national unity ought to be given the same recognition
as the reality of diversity.

A big challenge facing America in the twenty-first century is to build

a stronger and more humane multiethnic society in which individuals are
free to express their ethnic traditions and interests within the framework

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 94/ Major Issues in Ethnic Studies

of national identity, to make ethnic diversity a source of national unity

rather than division, and to strengthen the unum even as pluribus becomes
more visible. Let us maintain ethnic equality, celebrate ethnic diversity,
and promote and reinforce national unity.

SUMMARY

The brief history of immigration to the United States has shown the de-
velopment of ethnic diversity in America. In an ethnically diversified so-
ciety, the interaction or adaptation of different ethnic groups is inevitable.
What mode and outcome best represent the American experience? What
model should be the direction of ethnic adaptation for America in the near
future ? These are the questions addressed in this chapter.
Scholars have formulated the models of ethnic interaction in very dif-
ferent ways. The Anglo-conformity perspective envisions a disappear-
ance of ethnic culture and institutions and a total assimilation of an ethnic
group into the dominant Anglo culture and institutions. The melting-pot
perspective foresees a disappearance of both the dominant culture and
the ethnic culture and the creation of a brand new group and culture
through fusing both. The cultural pluralism perspective emphasizes the
retention of ethnic culture and the coexistence of the dominant culture
and the ethnic culture. The ethnogenesis perspective integrates assimila-
tion, melting pot, and cultural pluralism in a more complex fashion, with
an attempt to explain the real adaptation process of ethnic groups, espe-
cially European groups.
Projecting interaction between the dominant group and minority
groups in a more antagonistic fashion, the internal colonialism perspective
stresses the internal colonization of minority groups by the dominant
group within the same country. The class approaches suggest examining
ethnic antagonism and oppression in a class framework by highlighting
the crucial role of the capitalist class in making profit and causing ethnic
conflict and subordination.
These theories are to varying degrees valid for the experience of spe-
cific groups in specific places and specific times. For the foreseeable fu-
ture, multiculturalism as a framework for American ethnic relations seems
to be gaining momentum. In any event, equality, diversity, and unity
should govern future ethnic relations in the United States.

This content downloaded from 73.90.182.227 on Fri, 29 Aug 2025 04:17:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms