| Last month, I reviewed my being an individual while simultaneously being part of a family, a rather small unit with many common experiences that created bonding. I also reviewed being an American in addition to being a Japanese American. I had no major hang-ups growing up as a Japanese American, but as years went by, I did see problems with the "melting pot" point of view. I also saw value in exploring and being part of the developing understanding and acceptance of diversity - not in stock market dealings but in human relations. The idea of cultural competence is involved in that understanding, but I shall not veer off on a tangent about that vital element. Units have individualized identities. Sometimes, they can constitute a family, clan, a tribe, or kenkinjai. Each unit has an assortment of weaknesses and strengths. So what does all this lead to? It leads to the idea of diversity as a strength versus the idea of a social melting pot of ethnic and other groupings such as religion, race or color, sexual preference, political leaning, etc. Diversity has strengths and weaknesses. The old and presently laid-aside concept of a melting pot was rooted in a false sense of equality -- everyone is human; therefore, everyone is the same. Reality was absent even though the basic idea may have been rooted in humanity and goodness. Individuals are different; people are different. Many differences are obvious (such as color, dialect, accent, or language usage); others are not (such as religion, sexual preference, or emotional or mental disorder). The concept of diversity has power when recognized; however, an element not to be overlooked is that each component making up that diversity needs a binding strength, and intra-identification (like some common factor) to enable recognition and acceptance of others within that diversity. Until there is unity, weakness will persist. Leadership values and styles that may be effective in a unit may not be the same when units become a larger group. The need for broader perspectives becomes vital. Each unit's concerns may have to be suppressed, possibly temporarily, for the good of all units within the larger group. As groups coalesce into larger entities, the need for understanding becomes more and more essential to assure acceptance not only within the group itself but also from those outside the group. Coalitions of ethnic groups have potential for great strength within a democratic society. If we seriously believe in the strength of diversity, we must know more about each part that makes up the whole. If we are thinking about cultural or ethnic diversity, we must know about, understand, and accept each of the components of that diversity. Though a Japanese American, I identify with others of Asian ancestry and encourage development of Asian American as a separate ethnic entity. To add to the complexity of non-race-related grouping, being well over 65, I identify with the aged population. But that's another tangent for me to avoid. I know a little about my own family but very little about my parents' parents, my wife's parents, and forebears. I decided not to pursue any genealogical search because I'm really not that interested. I've tried to learn about Japanese culture, society, and some history, but I know very little. My knowledge about other Asian groups also has huge gaps. Then, of course, there are many ethnic, religious, and other groups about which I need to know more. Lack of knowledge, however, should not limit empathy or the pursuit of understanding. Our feelings and emotions must be directed toward acceptance. An important concern not to be minimized is the potential for unintentional slights. On the other hand, what the heck! We should give it a try because diversity is worth the extra effort and can lead to a better society. Much of the basic thrust of the Wisconsin Organization for Asian Americans, Asian Wisconzine, and other efforts is to further the aim of expanding knowledge about some of the similarities and differences among Asian people and cultures. Some hope that development of a visible group identity as Asian American will provide a strong base, one that will be able to join other groupings that together will result in diversity. Then, many perspectives can be considered when decisions are made that affect both majority and minority interests. The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), to which my wife and I have been long-time members, understood that unless individuals formed a group, political and other powers cannot materialize. JACL, founded in 1929, now has 112 chapters in 26 states and has over 24,000 members. The Milwaukee Chapter, now the Wisconsin Chapter, has been in existence for 60 years. It is "... committed to securing and upholding the human and civil rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry and others..." Thus, that group recognizes its responsibility to its immediate group as well as to the larger community. In taking action, it joins coalitions formed to meet specific issues such as civil rights, hate crimes, racial profiling, etc. The melting-pot idea was enticing and seductive to many Americans because of its appeal to equality and tolerance (I personally do not like to be tolerated). It gave rise to the feeling of embodying concepts of democracy and justice for all. It just seemed right. BUT, it really wasn't, was it? |
| Melting pot or diversity A review and opinion change? by Paul Kusuda |
 |
 |