Paul Kusuda’s column
Melting pot/Diversity revisited
Melting pot/Diversity revisited
By Paul Kusuda
About three years ago (April and May 2006, to be exact), I wrote articles called “Melting Pot or Diversity:
Which Makes More Sense?” and “Melting Pot or Diversity: A Review and Opinion Change?” Since then, I’ve
continued to watch what seems to be going on. I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m far from being impressed.
The “Meling Pot” paradigm, or model, was premised on the hope that the United States’ populace aspired to
fulfill a dream that all who reside in this great country would develop into what might be ideally conceived as
“AMERICAN.” Neither race nor color mattered if one were American. Non-Whites seized the paradigm; caring
people, many of whom were idealists, also bought into the dream. That concept of American was not real (and
could never become possible).
The dream fit well within the Declaration of Independence (second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776): “…We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” Inspiring words.
Powerful. Yet, I wondered years ago and even now. Does the word “men” include both men and women? Does it
include all the slaves that we had in the colonies? Does it include the right for all “men” to vote? As it turned out,
amendments to the U.S. Constitution eventually provided answers (Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, and XIX). The 19th
Amendment, women’s right to vote, wasn’t adopted until August 18, 1920. That’s almost 90 years ago – and 144
years after the Declaration of Independence.
Instantaneous is not what I’d call the relationship between words of inspiration and the realization of parts of
the Declaration. However, what I’ve noticed about our democratic form of government is that even though
policies and practices appear to stagger from one form to the other, the general direction is worthwhile. Our job
is to assist the staggering syndrome to move in the general direction as we as a group consider being
appropriate and proper.
The “melting pot” dream was to create a colorless or single-color society such that decisions and emotional
responses to social, economic, educational, and many other issues would be based on considerations other than
race or color. At one time, there was a disdain about anyone claiming to be a hyphenated American, such as I, a
Japanese American. I never used a hyphen because I am an American with Japanese ancestry.
Some in mainstream America believed that “foreigners” could be assimilated into American society if they
could “only be like us.” Thus, we who were not White were superficially accepted if we wore clothes “correctly,”
walked and talked “correctly,” and otherwise “fit in.” Many non-Whites bought into the idea, some probably as a
self-protective device. They tried hard to meet the acceptable mode. Ostensibly, they were accepted, according to
the “melting pot” conceptual design. They were deceived, and though they knew it, it seemed better than being
totally excluded from many social and other functions.
That deception, sometimes real and other times erroneously misperceived, leads many non-Whites to be
suspicious, wary, and constantly on guard not to be lured in a possibly embarrassing situation. Occasionally, that
cautionary attitude results in the non-White having a chip on his/her shoulder, daring others to express racially-
tinged remarks. That can result in hostility, either covert or overt, as a worse case result. The inevitable result is
reduction in communication. Gestures, glances, words, intent, meaning etc. become too easily misconstrued.
So much for potentials relating to the “melting pot” paradigm. It’s not a truly workable concept, even though
intentions may be pure and geared in the direction of promoting understanding among people. There are too many
pitfalls and naïve hopes. So what is the alternative? One is diversity.
Three years ago in writing about supporting diversity, I noted my scarcity of knowledge about the many ethnic
groups comprising the ethnic classification of “Asian.” Then I wrote, “Lack of knowledge, however, should not
limit empathy or the pursuit of understanding. Our feelings and emotions must be directed toward acceptance …
(W)hat the heck! We should give it a try because diversity is worth the extra effort and can lead to a better
society.”
Since writing all that, I’ve been looking at diversity as a working social model. I’m not impressed, and I’ll
write about my observations and concerns next month.
About three years ago (April and May 2006, to be exact), I wrote articles called “Melting Pot or Diversity:
Which Makes More Sense?” and “Melting Pot or Diversity: A Review and Opinion Change?” Since then, I’ve
continued to watch what seems to be going on. I’m not impressed. In fact, I’m far from being impressed.
The “Meling Pot” paradigm, or model, was premised on the hope that the United States’ populace aspired to
fulfill a dream that all who reside in this great country would develop into what might be ideally conceived as
“AMERICAN.” Neither race nor color mattered if one were American. Non-Whites seized the paradigm; caring
people, many of whom were idealists, also bought into the dream. That concept of American was not real (and
could never become possible).
The dream fit well within the Declaration of Independence (second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776): “…We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” Inspiring words.
Powerful. Yet, I wondered years ago and even now. Does the word “men” include both men and women? Does it
include all the slaves that we had in the colonies? Does it include the right for all “men” to vote? As it turned out,
amendments to the U.S. Constitution eventually provided answers (Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, and XIX). The 19th
Amendment, women’s right to vote, wasn’t adopted until August 18, 1920. That’s almost 90 years ago – and 144
years after the Declaration of Independence.
Instantaneous is not what I’d call the relationship between words of inspiration and the realization of parts of
the Declaration. However, what I’ve noticed about our democratic form of government is that even though
policies and practices appear to stagger from one form to the other, the general direction is worthwhile. Our job
is to assist the staggering syndrome to move in the general direction as we as a group consider being
appropriate and proper.
The “melting pot” dream was to create a colorless or single-color society such that decisions and emotional
responses to social, economic, educational, and many other issues would be based on considerations other than
race or color. At one time, there was a disdain about anyone claiming to be a hyphenated American, such as I, a
Japanese American. I never used a hyphen because I am an American with Japanese ancestry.
Some in mainstream America believed that “foreigners” could be assimilated into American society if they
could “only be like us.” Thus, we who were not White were superficially accepted if we wore clothes “correctly,”
walked and talked “correctly,” and otherwise “fit in.” Many non-Whites bought into the idea, some probably as a
self-protective device. They tried hard to meet the acceptable mode. Ostensibly, they were accepted, according to
the “melting pot” conceptual design. They were deceived, and though they knew it, it seemed better than being
totally excluded from many social and other functions.
That deception, sometimes real and other times erroneously misperceived, leads many non-Whites to be
suspicious, wary, and constantly on guard not to be lured in a possibly embarrassing situation. Occasionally, that
cautionary attitude results in the non-White having a chip on his/her shoulder, daring others to express racially-
tinged remarks. That can result in hostility, either covert or overt, as a worse case result. The inevitable result is
reduction in communication. Gestures, glances, words, intent, meaning etc. become too easily misconstrued.
So much for potentials relating to the “melting pot” paradigm. It’s not a truly workable concept, even though
intentions may be pure and geared in the direction of promoting understanding among people. There are too many
pitfalls and naïve hopes. So what is the alternative? One is diversity.
Three years ago in writing about supporting diversity, I noted my scarcity of knowledge about the many ethnic
groups comprising the ethnic classification of “Asian.” Then I wrote, “Lack of knowledge, however, should not
limit empathy or the pursuit of understanding. Our feelings and emotions must be directed toward acceptance …
(W)hat the heck! We should give it a try because diversity is worth the extra effort and can lead to a better
society.”
Since writing all that, I’ve been looking at diversity as a working social model. I’m not impressed, and I’ll
write about my observations and concerns next month.