THE MEANING OF “UNUM,” Part II

The last posting began a review of the ideas of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. regarding the differences between critical multiculturalists and assimilationists.[1]  That posting left the reader with Schlesinger’s opinion that critical multiculturalists can’t divorce themselves from the contributions of Western culture.  That that tradition provides the sentiments and reasoned rationales upon which these advocates base their calls for liberty and equality.

          This posting delves into what the substance of that tradition is.  The liberal historian does not deny the crimes of that tradition, but that those crimes have spurred their “antidotes.”  Among those counter beliefs include rationales to end slavery, to upgrade the status of women, to do away with legalized torture, to wage the fight against racism, to uphold (if not invent) the practice of free inquiry and expression, and to lay the foundation and practice of individual liberty and the enumeration of human rights.

          The historical record shows that these “democratic” attributes got their starts in Europe and included the belief in the rule of law and that cultures should not face extinction by dominant ways of life.  Take one of these, freedom of inquiry; it has allowed a rich tradition of artistic expression.  Schlesinger, to make this point, cites the case of Salman Rushdie.

That novelist portrayed a story offensive to the followers of a Middle East religious tradition.  Well, some of the followers issued death threats against the writer because their tradition did not share the ideals of tolerance that would allow such writings.  Yet, in the West, many could not even understand this reaction; it was so non-Western.

          Summarizing, Schlesinger writes, “Individualism itself is looked on with abhorrence and dread by collectivist cultures in which loyalty to the group overrides personal goals – cultures that, social scientists say, comprise about 70 percent of the world’s population.”[2]  A key word in this quote is “collectivist.” 

That word represents the basic difference – and here this blogger is interjecting – between critical theory thought and federation theory thought.  Central to critical thought is the group, the collective; central to federation theory thought is the compact-ing of consensual individuals.  Under this latter view the result is not a collective, but a community that allows for congregations to meet common challenges while protecting the integrity of each member. 

The historian charges:  “White guilt can be pushed too far.”  And this “pushing” has led to various counterproductive aims.  Ethnic ideologues seem to be advocating a central policy choice:  bilingual curricula in public schools.  This would be punctuated with choices to segregate minority children from American society.

It would also promote the message that these students do not take part in American democratic tradition and adopt the language and thought of them being victims with a reliance on alibis.  This, in effect, leads to a generation turning away from opportunities to attain the gains by the strenuous work of prior civil right workers and, yes, white guilt.

Here, one can find a union between the writings of Gunnar Myrdal[3] and federation theory.  That being that a stand against a single society will ultimately fail and will not deliver its promise of a better life.  And among the rank and file of minority citizens, the dream still exists:  to shed ethnicity and land up in the suburbs in as short a time as possible. 

Rank and file does not include all:  “Others may enjoy their ethnic neighborhoods but see no conflict between foreign descent and American loyalty.  Unlike the multiculturalists, they celebrate not only what is distinctive in their own backgrounds but what they hold in common with the rest of the population.”[4]

As mentioned in the last posting, this blogger agrees a lot with Schlesinger ideas and sentiments, but not all of it.  But at a time when there seems to be a collapsing of diverse opinions in the great polarization of the national political arena, and a newer form of incubation seems to be in effect, one should not lose cognizance of what is brewing below the surface.

One can sort of see it in Portland where some protesters are expressing moderate objections to racism and some are more virulent and extreme in what they want to happen.  The factions are united because the current political realities demand it, but this does not mean they have disappeared.  The next posting will continue this blog’s treatment of Schlesinger’s argument.

---

[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1992).

[2] Ibid., 127.

[3] Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York, NY:  Harper and Brothers, 1944).

[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America, 132.

THE MEANING OF “UNUM,” Part I

The words of this posting are written as the body of John Lewis lies in state at the US Capitol.  His long career in civil rights and as a Congressman reflects the issue of national division mostly along racial lines.  While this writer does not attribute to Lewis a commitment to any critical multiculturalism this blog addressed not long ago, his passing does encourage one to think about the points of contention between multiculturalists and assimilationists.

          While the reader is more than likely aware of how Lewis became nationally known – through his participation in a peaceful demonstration in Alabama that turned ugly – a short review is proper.  That was an incident, “Bloody Sunday,” in 1965 when Lewis and people from a group organized by a top lieutenant of Martin Luther King, staged a march near the Edmund Pettus Bridge. 

The demonstrators were attacked by the Alabama State Troopers after the troopers had ordered the demonstrators to disperse, but they stood their ground.  As a result, Lewis suffered a fractured skull after being hit by a trooper’s baton.  And this was not the only time Lewis was hurt or jailed in his long career.

          But from what this writer has heard, in terms of Lewis, through the years or through some of his allegiances, one would be hard pressed to label the civil rights icon a critical multiculturalist.  Instead, the opinion here is that he was proud of his heritage, but that what he foresaw best for his fellow African Americans was for them to become respectfully assimilated – an assimilation that addressed the past wrongs while recognizing their rights to fully participate in what one can describe as partnering in their citizenship.  After all, the 1965 effort was about respecting blacks’ constitutional right to vote, a cornerstone of such partnering.

          So, how do those who favor assimilation see civil rights and the aims and goals Americans should strive for to achieve “E Pluribus Unum?”  In short, what does “Unum” mean while maintaining the integrity of the “Pluribus.”  To address this question, this posting revisits the thoughts of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the historian and presidential advisor.

          Schlesinger was an advisor of the liberal president, John F. Kennedy, and also advised Robert F. Kennedy during the younger Kennedy’s run for the presidency.  He, therefore, can be easily considered a left-of-center historical character.  As such, his career reflected a serious commitment to a civil rights agenda as the assimilators defined those aims and goals.  This posting’s account of his ideas is not in an effort to promote all of what the historian proposed, but as an attempt to share a well-thought-out argument explaining from where his sentiments originate.[1]

          But before reviewing that argument, here is a set of numbers that can serve as a backdrop for Schlesinger’s ideas.  As of 2010 census, the following distribution in the American population exists:  Western European (white) descendants account for 72.4% of the population; African Americans stand at 13%; Immigrant population, 14.4%; Latino/a population, 16.7%; Anglo-Saxon, 8.7%.[2]  These numbers have a factual effect, they serve to define the environment in which these concerns unfold.

          And off these numbers, Schlesinger makes his first point in regard to striving toward the “Unum.”  While immigrants, in the ’80s, accounted for about 30% of the population, this does not diminish the dominance of natural born citizens.  More recent numbers indicate that in 2015, of the total population of 324 million, 22.2% was made up of immigrants who came to the US from 1965 to 2015.[3]  If one adds the black percentage, one can judge that roughly 70% of the population is European based and white.  Schlesinger doubts a minority majority is in the cards any time soon.

          He laments the fact that white “Europeans” have had such a dominant role in determining the American culture, but that is just the case.  And therefore, while imperialist motivation might have influenced the behaviors of some – one has a hard time thinking of Irish and Italian immigrants making the trip over to pursue imperialist aims – the culture that the nation presently has is the product of these demographic facts and not of any imperialist plan by some dastardly minority.

          And what should be the response to these facts?  Should one ignore them as the history of the nation is described and explained to young school children?  Yes, one should strive to include the presence, influence, and other contributions from that 30% – even justifiably glorifying it – in those lessons.  But that is not the aim of multiculturalists; they strive to cast the majority culture and its people as ethnocentric and they, the multiculturalists, find little value in Western culture. 

The curriculum should, according to multiculturalists, advance a message:  that one should divorce oneself from that sinful cultural heritage and degrade its criminal past.  But is this really possible?  In Schlesinger’s words,

The “unmasking,” “demythologizing,” “[de-]canonizing,” “dehegemonizing,” blitz against Western culture depends on methods of critical analysis unique to the West – which surely testifies to the internally redemptive potentialities of the Western tradition. … [So, for example,] Afrocentric ideologues are intellectual children of the West they repudiate.[4]

It is not by accident that the most viable anti-discrimination and anti-imperialistic movements have emanated from Western or Western founded states.

          And part of the reason for that correlation is the liberalizing developments that Western philosophy and political evolvements have accrued.  And it is with that notion that the next posting will continue this review of Schlesinger’s argument.

---

[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1992).

[2] These percentages do not add up to 100% because certain groups are not included and there is overlapping among these groupings.

[3] “Chapter 2:  Immigration’s Impact on Past and Future U.S. Population Change,” Pew Research, Hispanic Trends, September 28, 2015, accessed July 27, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change/ .

[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America, 124.

---

[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America:  Reflections on a Multicultural Society (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton and Company, 1992).

[2] These percentages do not add up to 100% because certain groups are not included and there is overlapping among these groupings.

[3] “Chapter 2:  Immigration’s Impact on Past and Future U.S. Population Change,” Pew Research, Hispanic Trends, September 28, 2015, accessed July 27, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change/ .

[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of America, 124.