So, you recall when I conveyed that little extra assignment as we started this fourth paper? The one that I said had to be posted on the blog, only I didn't give you a blog to post it on?
Well, here it is.
For those of you who don't remember, or weren't there, I realized that people weren't reading their work. And I posted this assignment and made people aware of it.
The assignment particulars are as follows, pulled directly from the assignment in question (listed as "Assignment", in the folder "Other Assignments" on Vista:
Assignment: Discuss, in detail, Bharati Mukherjee’s mediatory essay “Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation”.
Format: Responsive Essay
Since I’ve discovered that many of the class did not fully read Ms. Mukherjee’s essay which was to be the topic of Friday’s discussion, I think it is time to put our studies where our mouths weren’t.
YOUR TASK:
Critically analyze Ms. Mukherjee’s essay. Refer to our process of critical analysis that we discussed earlier in the semester. Identify the writer’s position, her background, and her ideas.
We are considering Mukherjee’s essay a mediation of the previous two essays, Roger Kimball’s “Institutionalizing Our Demise: America vs. Multiculturalism” and Elizabeth Martinez’ “Reinventing America: Call for a New National Identity”. (You’ll want to refer to these essays as well.) Whose ideas do you identify with, Kimball’s, Martinez’, or Mukherjee’s? Why or why not? Does Mukherjee have the authenticity to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for America? Who has the right to discuss this topic? Do you have to be born here to be an authority on things American? You may touch on some of these questions, or others that come to your mind, in discussing these three essays.
Your essay will be at least 900 words long. You will also POST it on the blog (under Blog #7 – Multiculturalism Wars) no later than FRIDAY, 4/15 at 11:59 pm.
Bottom Line: I want to know that you understood the reading that so few of us have (apparently) done.
This should be an easy blog to post, since you should already have done the assignment.
I will now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
-- MP
Mukherjee’s position in her essay is that of opposition. She challenges the way that immigrants are treated and identified in the American society. She feels that there are not equal opportunities extended for immigrants as there are for American born citizens. Mukherjee grew up in a strong Indian culture, and then decided to come to the United States to seek more education. She is a very intelligent woman as shown in her essay, but may be a little bit misinformed about the United States intentions by granting legal citizenship. By being a legal citizen, people are not going to hold your hand along the way, they are going to treat you like every other American citizen, immigrant or not. As soon as you are legalized, you are expected to keep up with society, hold a job, rent/own a home, pay taxes, have an education, have a family, etc.. These things are what sets immigrants equal to American born residents. In order to achieve the “American Dream” you have to work for it, it will not just find you as soon as you arrive here. I think this is a huge misconception among immigrants seeking citizenship into our country. Mukherjee feels that our American society does not accept all cultures, but if that is the case, how was she granted citizenship? She argues that life is not fair and there is exclusion among races. His is something that she needs to change on her own. There is an opportunity for everyone in this country to find their place and make someone of themselves. I feel like she came here expecting one thing, but was highly disgusted to see how things actually operate here. She feels like there is still separation based upon what country other citizens were born in. That there is not the melting pot effect, rich in culture that she was expecting to notice right away as soon as she got here. I cannot identify with Mukherjee’s essay too much because I am an American born citizen who has never had to face the conflicts of coming to a new country. I have never felt that I was not welcomed in my own country, and I feel completely at home here. Mukherjee also has a lot of life experiences that I do not. She is already married, resided in three different countries, finished her schooling and is a very talented writer in the world today. I do not think there is a set authenticity that should only be able to discuss multiculturalism and immigration for America. Every culture has their own unique experience, and those experiences have changed throughout the years. America has also become a melting pot for many countries, and many different cultures are being blended together here. I feel that anyone who is an immigrant has the right to discuss how they feel going through the immigration process and their views on multiculturalism in the United States. However, I feel that American born citizens should have somewhat of a say as to what the legalization limits should be for our country. I also feel that immigrants come to our country with a set picture of their minds of what the United States is going to be like. For some it ends up being a very pleasant experience and they are able to receive the infamous “American Dream”. However for some who are never fully able to seek full time employment, have a home to call their own, or are not treated equally by their peers have different notions.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, I feel that many cultures want to come into our country and bring their culture with them, and live the same life here as they do in their homeland. This is realistic. There is no possible way to change countries and have every single thing stay the same. Whether it be the government, rights and freedoms, taxes, credibility, or happiness. If we were not our unique selves, we would not be the United States. That is something that I think should be remembered by many immigrants, that they cannot change our culture because this is where they want to reside. I do not think you have to be born in the United States to be an authority on things in America. However, I do feel that you should be a citizen. Hard working, law abiding citizens have earned the right to have a voice in our country. Granted, I do not think that someone who has been a citizen of the United States for 8 years should be able to run for the presidential election, if they have obtained enough prior experience, they should be able to help out and become an authority figure in our country. For someone who came here and became a citizen when they were 6 months old, grew up here, and American culture is all they have known, they should have more rights as to what they can contribute to our society by becoming an authority figure. I see no problem with someone like this running in a presidential election because they did live just as much of an American life as you or I did. I think that the underlying problem here is the fact that immigrants do have that picture of what America is in their heads, and when they get here they can experience something totally different from what they pictured. However, the United States cannot stop functioning and living life the way we always have to accommodate all of the different cultures in our society. By doing so, we would no longer be living in a functioning nation.
ReplyDelete-Kaitlyn Huml
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteContrasted with Elizabeth Martinez’ “Reinventing America: Call for a New National Identity” in which carries the conventional perspectives that immigration to a new country is a condition of loss and dispossession, Bharati Mukherjee thinks that we should define the idea of multiculturalism as a process of gain and absorption. It shouldn’t be views as cutting off from the original cultural identity. It sounds indeed optimistic and her pro-US orientation is very evident.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think Mukherjee has done a great job in mediating between the nationalism and calling for a new national identity. She implies that while America transforms all those who make their home in it, America itself is being transformed. Therefore, mainstream culture and values are inevitably reshaped by the new immigrants in a continual process. She also admitted some rituals and values inherited from one’s original culture cannot be assimilated or absorbed, even by the compulsive policies made by government. According to Roger Kimball’s “Institutionalizing Our Demise: America vs. Multiculturalism”, since multiculturalism claims to stand for the sanctity and worth of each culture, the discovery that its real tendency is to dismantle the existing, European-based culture of the United States should have instantly discredited it. Roger Kimball’s fear is clear: while the majority culture is in the process of being submerged by the inclusion of every minority culture, every minority culture is to be guaranteed the mastery of its own domain. In other words, he is fearful when imagining majority will give up its identity, while the minorities aggrandize theirs.
Multiculturalism does not mean the same thing to everyone. Even the multiculturalists do not agree with one another as to what they are advocating. Is Bharati Mukherjee, a writer who has elected to describe herself as an “American” writer, an authority to discuss immigration and multiculturalism? My answer is no. She gullibly ignores addressing head on the tension caused by racial and ethnic inequality, in favor of cute, simple tokens of diversity. Every individual here in America has unique past experience, view of the society, but everyone has the equal right to discuss the topic. We’d better look at the background of Bharati Mukherjee. She is born into a Bengali-speaking, Hindu Brahmin family in Calcutta in 1940, but left India for the University of Iowa in the USA in 1962 where she met and married the writer Clark Blaise. In 1966, she followed her husband to his ancestral home of Canada, and went back to US again as a naturalized US citizen. This woman has found her true literary identity - something that she claims coincided with her discovery of herself as an American. Admittedly, she experienced much more than most Indian-born American citizens, who might think her narration overlooked some material and economic realities facing the Third World immigration. Race, status, gender and class are socially constructed and may serve as insurmountable barriers for those minorities.
Mukherjee isn’t afraid to repudiate the racism in Canada, whose multicultural mosaic did not carry cultural citizenship to all of Canada's citizens. However, I searched online and found that multiculturalism as an official policy was implemented in Canada in 1971, by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, as a sign of the nation's commitment to cultural plurality through the accommodation, within the national space, of Canada's ethnically diverse composition, heritage and traditions: its aboriginal peoples, the Anglophone and Francophone groups, the other European immigrants who arrived from the middle of the nineteenth century, and the more recently arrived "visible minority" immigrants from non-European, mostly Asian, countries.
Having been here in KSU for nearly seven months as a Chinese student, I have experienced much cultural shock, and I found America to be a very multicultural nation compared to China. Multiculturalism is taught in academia, debated in government, promoted by ethnic leaders, reported by the media, and discussed among the citizenry. I really enjoyed the sociology course, because it talks about nearly all the culture existing in America, not only the western culture. “Culture is always a conversation among different voices.” In reality, we have to face such dilemma: Western culture consists of such different voices such as Christianity, Judaism, Greek philosophy, and modern science. It is quite a different thing to say that the Western conversation consists of Islam, Animism, Voodoo, and Rastafarianism. Clearly, to include every voice as an equal participant in the Western conversation would mean the end of the Western conversation.
ReplyDeleteThough I am in favor of multiculturalism, I think it unreal and impractical that many multiculturalists argue that a diverse and tolerant society creates peace and order in a world where cultures are colliding, but in practice it seems to go the other way around. Therefore, I indeed agree with the notion that when it comes to multiculturalism, “focusing only on the rose when reaching for it usually brings flesh into painful contact with a thorn; focusing narrowly on racial or cultural differences often causes the pain of isolation or conflict.” Completely ignoring the thorns result in potential risk. But if we look only at the thorns, we unfortunately miss the beauty of the rose. If we pay heed to the thorns or remove them, as florists so thoughtfully do for their customers, then they cannot hurt us, and our appreciation for the rose remains unspoiled. I think we shall now look first at the thorns, the negative side of multiculturalism, and then at the roses, or positive side.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteAfter reading , Bharati Mukherjee’s mediatory essay “Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation” I’ve learned a lot about different cultures. I learned how hard it is to determine the culture of specific countries especially the United States considering how there are so many different people from different countries and different walks of life that live in America. After reading the previous two essays in the aims of argument book, Roger Kimball’s “Institutionalizing Our Demise: America vs. Multiculturalism” and Elizabeth Martinez’ “Reinventing America: Call for a New National Identity” I realized that I identify more with Mukherjee’s mediatory essay. I identify with Mukherjee’s idea of multiculturalism because I can understand more of where she’s coming from because she explains it better than Roger Kimball and Elizabeth Martinez did. I don’t know too much about other cultures about after reading these three essays I believe that Mukherjee’s had the most knowledge about different cultures than Roger Kimball and Elizabeth Martinez did. I like how she described American culture. She defined American culture as “a culture of dreamers, who believe material shape (which is not the same as materialism) can be given to dreams. They believe that one’s station in life – poverty, education, family background- does not determine one’s fate. They believe in the reversal of omens; early failures do not spell inevitable disaster. Outsiders can triumph on merit. All of this happens against the backdrop of the familiar vicissitudes of American life.”I feel that Mukherjee does have the authenticity to discuss immigration and multiculturalism for America. I believe this because she is a naturalized United States citizen with a certificate of citizenship. She goes on to say that she is an American for whom “America” is the stage for the drama of self transformation. I didn’t understand what she meant by that when I first read it but after finishing the essay I think that it has to do with the drama she had to face when the American culture transformed her. I believe anybody who has experienced the United State’s culture has a right to discuss this topic seeing as how America’s culture is the main focus in this discussion. Bharati Mukherjee has experienced American culture even though she was from Calcutta, India she lived in Iowa when she was younger. She was sent to Iowa by her father to spend two years studying Creative Writing at Paul Engle’s unique Writters Workshop. She describes her life back home as very different from the lives lived by people in the United States. She described herself as a shy, pliant, well-mannered, dutiful young daughter from a very privileged, traditional, mainstream Hindu family that belived women should be well protected and provided for by their fathers, husbands and sons.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteHowever, it did not once occur to her that she might have goals of her own, quite distinct from those specified to her by her father. It was apparent that she was going through an “identity crisis” a term she never heard of in Calcutta. The concept of an identity crisis is of a person not knowing who he or she was. In her culture someone’s identity was absolutely fixed, derived from religion, caste, patrimony, and mother tongue. Whereas in the United States culture people have the privilege to find their own identity their own way through their own experiences and beliefs. I found it interesting that since being at school in Iowa was her first coeducational experience she fell in love with a student and married him off of impulse during a lunch break in a lawyer’s office above a coffee shop. This action lead her deeper into American culture now that she was made an American citizen through marriage. She went through a hard time with this change and that she learned an important lesson that in this era of massive diasporic movements, honorable survival requires resilience, curiosity, and compassion, a letting go of rigid ideals about the purity of inherited culture. Her and her husband than moved to Canada where he was from and it was there that she started to deeply miss her homeland. After fourteen years in Canada she moved back to the United States. The transition from foreign student to U.S Citizen, from detached onlooker to committed immigrant, was not easy at all for her. She describes Canada as “a country that officially – and proudly- resists the policy and process of cultural fusion. For all its smug rhetoric about “cultural mosaic,” Canada refuses to renovate it’s national self-image to include its hanging complexion. It is a New World country with Old World concepts of a fixed, exclusivist national identity.” She takes her American citizenship very seriously stating “I am a voluntary immigrant. I am not an economic refugee, and not a seeker of political asylum. I am an American by choice, and not by the simple accident of birth. I have made emotional, social, and political commitments to this country. I have earned the right to think of myself as an American.” I agree with her on this and I believe she puts more thought into the American culture than most born Americans do. That’s why I believe that you don’t have to be born here to be an authority on things American. She also describes the violence that multiculturalism causes in the United States. She says “we are witnessing an increase in physical, too often fatal, assaults on Asian Americans. An increase in systematic “dot-busting” of Indo-Americans in New Jersey, Xenophobic immigrant-baiting in California, Minority-on-minority violence during the south-central Los Angeles revolution.”
Part 1
ReplyDeleteBrittany Jones
Responsive essay
When it comes to analyzing Mukherjee’s essay, she is obviously mediating between the Kimball and Martinez essays. Her essay is a good way to sum up both of the two essays because it gives a case against both of them, but it also gives a real life story which many people can picture and understand. Mukherjee is giving real life facts, but the other two essays are more opinions and what they would like to happen with multiculturalism. It is important to hear all sides of the story and that’s what mediatory essays are for.
Mukherjee was born in Calcutta, but is now an American citizen. She is currently a professor of English at the University of California at Berkeley. In the essay she is seeking goodwill of people on both sides of the arguments. She refers to Kimball’s essay by explaining that she is patriotic and takes her citizenship very seriously. She then refers to herself as a woman of color, who has been “tested” by racial prejudices, such as living in Canada and was considered a citizen of non-European origin because of the Old World concepts they still practice which could then falls under Martinez’s side. One of Mukherjee’s ideas is that she feels that people need to alert themselves and reinforce “us” versus “them”. Violence and wars are resulted into people divided according to ethnic and religious differences. She wants to try and make it more about “we”.
She thinks that hyphenization should be non-exist in America because she feels downgraded, since she is a citizen. If Americans don’t hyphen anything then she feels non-whites shouldn’t have to say they are “Asian-Americans” for example.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to me, I would side with Mukherjee because I think she brings up good ideas for each person’s thoughts. I am more like Mukherjee and would rather just try to come to a neutral setting then just take sides right away without trying to compromise on both of the different ideas. I liked that for her essay she used real life situations that I could actually understand and put myself in her position. I think when choosing sides you are always going to have someone standing in your way so you might as well just come to an agreement. For instance, Mukherjee said “ The barriers between “Americans” and hyphenated Americans would break down, as both Kimball and Martinez wanted”. Right there you is a good start for both people then they can work from there and hopefully come to an agreement.
I believe that Mukherjee does have the right to discuss immigration and multiculturalism because she has some good real life situations and she has experienced a lot of matters at first hand. Many might argue that since she isn’t a born US citizen, she doesn’t have the rights. I agree with Mukherjee though and say that she is US citizen now and does have the same rights as anyone else in America. People that are US citizens and haven’t been to a lot of places like Mukherjee might end up having more of a one-sided discussion and not be able to use past experiences. She even calls herself a “voluntary immigrant” in her essay, which explains my thoughts even more. Many people like Mukherjee who has not grown up in the US want us to hear about there ideas/views so we can understand different sides and not just one-side. Mukherjee even comes to a middle point of view in her essay and explains both sides, which is good so people get an even better understanding.
I think anyone can talk about immigration and multiculturalism. It’s how you give your reasons and facts that give a good and believable story. If you have weak thoughts and hardly give any evidence to support, then more people are likely not to side with you and go with another story. For example, since Mukherjee used her own personal story I think it gave her essay something “extra” which will attract people to it. People like to hear about life stories and not just about how you are trying to get your point across like Kimball and Martinez did. Even though they had good essays, when you go to read Mukherjee’s essay you are a little bit shocked by how she tells her whole life story just to mediate between two other essays. Which, goes back to my thoughts on I think anyone can write about the topics, it’s just how you portray your thoughts about go about it that end up counting in the end when it’s all said and done.
Bharati Mukherjee wants America to have a “unifying national identity that blends the ever-changing mix of races and cultures that make up our population.” She would like America to form a new culture based on the mix of all its cultures into one we can all respect and be a part of. She does not want to emphasize our differences because it leads to dehumanization. Mukherjee is the daughter of a Bengali doctor and had a very privileged childhood. She attended all girls private schools and her father provided her with chauffeurs and bodyguards. Her father could also afford to send her to Paul Engle’s writing workshop in Iowa. She comes from a patriarchal Hindu society that frowned upon people even visiting other countries for fear of pollution. While in Iowa she married a naturalized American citizen and she herself became naturalized. After her marriage she spent 14 years living in Canada. Roger Kimball made some good points but at the same time he focused on the anglo-protestant culture and he believes that all Americans should be this way. Kimball is right to complain about “hyphenated-Americans” but he wants them all to be like him. I think we should all just be Americans but there are still some people that have different cultures and have U.S. citizenship. I am accepting of everyone that is a productive U.S. citizen. I even like people that are not citizens that are here legally. It is the unproductive and bigoted people that I don’t care for regardless of citizenship. I think that western Anglo culture has a place in this country just like any other race has a place in this country. The other thing I disagree with Kimball on is the Protestant ethics. Nobody needs religion to be a good or moral person and we defiantly don’t need religion in our politics. I do agree with our national language being English and it not changing that or accommodating any other language into any public owned places. That may seem insensitive, but our Bill of Rights and Constitution were written in English so that should be a good enough reason for all immigrants to have to learn English before they are granted citizenship. In Elizabeth Martinez’s essay she advocates a multicultural society. I agree that many white Americans need to be more excepting of other cultures but that is about it. I do not think that anyone should have to adopt anyone else's culture and if an American national identity is going to happen we need to let it happen naturally because if we don’t there will always be groups that are unhappy. I also do not like how she thinks that our current government needs to apologize for slavery. While slavery was an awful thing for our country to go through Americans did not invent it and we fought a civil war over it and killed our own country men to reunite a union divided over it.
ReplyDeletepart 2
ReplyDeleteI think the pain of a civil war is more than enough punishment for an inherited institution that nobody alive in this country had anything to do with. I feel like it is way to easy to blame America for slavery, taking the natives land, and bullying Mexico out of a lot of their land. If you look at history that is how things used to be done back in the day just take a look at the Roman Empire. If Martinez wants an apology she can get it from the Ancient Egyptians or Greeks for starting Western Civilization. I think that everyone has a right to talk about multiculturalism but I don’t put much stock in the words of Kimball, Martinez, or Mukherjee. I do not feel that any of them have experienced any major problems due to a lack of culture. They are all educated and are doing well enough to be published in a college text book. The way our country is these days if you are educated you are going to be fine and you will not be denied a job or happiness based on your race. I also find it very hard to believe that Martinez or Mukherjee suffered any racism from people that mattered. If you are a person that is educated you should know to ignore and disregard ignorance. These authors have not experienced anything like a lack of civil rights or genocide. So while respecting their beliefs I don’t think they have enough experience to be authentic. No, you do not have to be born in America to be an authority on things American. There are plenty of people that know a lot about America because of the media and the cultural imperialism of the West. I do think you have to spend time in America to be an authority on it and should be a citizen. I put absolutely no stock in anyones opinion about my country unless they are a Citizen of the United States of America. I also do not expect someone from Mexico, China, or Ireland to care about or acknowledge what I think about their country. If I had it my way we would form one world culture and one world language (Fingers crossed for English). After that we should put together all of our funds and scientists form a giant space army and Imperialize outer space. That way it will be thousands if not millions of years before any human actually cares about culture again.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteBharati Mukherjee's essay entitled "Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation" really made me stop and think how hard it is for immigrants both legal and illegal to come over to this country. Mukherjee really hit the nail on the head when she talked about how this country is essentially a failed cultural melting pot. The idea that this country was founded on was that all men were created equal hence everyone should be treated fairly and be able to get a fresh start and new life in this country. The reality that actually ensues is that the majority of this country up until maybe 40 years ago was made up of Caucasians who have European heritage and were born here. Their forefathers were born here and founded this "Land of the free". Truthfully, I believe that some people that come over to this country do nothing but exploit it. Some people want to "desperately" get out of an oppressive government and try to retain the same lifestyle here which is perfectly fine, this is the place to do it. The problem is, more and more communities are turning up with groups of people who have all come from the same or similar countries and the white community doesn't like this idea. We believe that if you come to America, you must speak English because that is our culture. I fall under a similar belief structure because I was born here and that's what I learned but the fact of the matter is, that is a completely UN-American idea. I was not aware that Canada has the same belief structure as America in which non-whites are treated not only as a minority, but as second-class citizens. Bharati Mukherjee also makes a bold statement in mentioning that America is only a dream, an idea that when some people get here learn that it is actually a nightmare. The trouble is that we were born into a belief system that has been held in this country for hundreds of years and will not likely change. Whites are supreme. In other words, if you are an immigrant, even if you were born here, and aren't white, then you are a second-class citizen. Although Mukherjee's idea of a true cultural melting pot where there isn't "Us and Them' there is only "We" is a good idea and a morally pure idea, I believe that this too is only a dream. I do sympathize with Mukherjee because she came from a sheltered life and was sent over here to learn how to write creatively and fell under the spell of love and learned that this was indeed a land of opportunity if you seize it.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI think if she could ban together all of the immigrants who held the same belief structure (I'm sure there are thousands of them) then she would be the perfect spokesperson to go in front of congress or the courts to voice her opinion. She has to understand that although she believes she is fighting alone, she isn't, and she needs help from everyone she can get. I believe that what we are looking at today is indeed a cultural phenomenon. If you look at urban neighborhoods where mostly blacks have gathered or Chinatown or Little Havana, this is what the whites despise. The slightest mention of immigrants to white leadership will make them red with anger because of what they represent, change. Change was the reason that this country had a civil war in the 1800s. I hope this is not a road that we are heading for once again. Back to Mukerjee's essay though, she discusses her lifestyle in India as being sheltered. She was born into the caste system where she was not allowed to marry a man of her choice, and no one outside of her Caste. She describes her home life as being forced to live with forty to fifty relatives. She was raised to believe that she was no different than any of her female cousins. She was no allowed to attend a co-educational school which means she probably rarely conversed with the opposite sex outside of her family. Coming over to this country represented a big change in culture and lifestyle. She could do whatever she wanted, didn't have to travel with bodyguards or be dictated by her father (who was a well-respected doctor if memory serves me right). She immediately married soon after she came to this country and moved to Canada with her Canadian American husband and got to further explore North America. She found that things were no different in Canada than America in terms of racism and bigotry. I cannot speak for Canada but I believe that all of the anger and bogtry focused on immigrants in America revolves around those who are coming here illegally. Not only to illegal immigrants steal jobs and opportunities that could be seized by natural American citizens, but they drastically increase the country's population, consume our resources (some such as gasoline are depleting rather quickly) and some are in fact criminals which raises our crime rates and fear. In the end, the only way that we can change our beliefs on immigrants is to throw away our old belief structure which I do not believe is ever going to happen. If we can limit the number of illegal immigrants who are coming in to this country, that would calm the general population but not erase the racism. Mukerjee's idea of a complete country where everyone is free and equal is a beautiful idea but is indeed a dream. I don't think that it is ever going to happen in my lifetime or the lifetime of this country.
Part one
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all three of these essays I believe I identify the most with Kimball. I know I am a little biased because I have not grown up in a different culture nor have many friends who have such as Martinez or Mukherjee but I agree with points from all of the essays as well. Kimball brings up some good points stating that America should be defined as one culture, not many. I believe if every other nation gets to have their own identity than we should as well. I do not necessarily agree with keeping a strong emphasis on religion because I do accept other people’s religion but if our nation was based on created on Christianity than it should continue that way. Christianity should be more accepted than all the other religions but if someone does not believe in religion or believes in another religion they should not be punished but accepted. I do not think this should ever be a real strong problem though because the Christian religion is already dominating today. I realize that we are becoming more and more diverse and I am not against that completely but if our identity is slowly being stripped from us than that is when it is getting out of hand.
I do not believe Mukherjee has the credibility to be speaking on the matter. I realize that she is very intelligent and has had experience in America, but her experience is different from that of a true American citizen speaking on the topic. She did not have it very easy going against her views and rebelling against her family but was it really that hard? All of the aspects she had to deal with were her decisions and none of it was something she had to experience. Being an immigrant makes her more than able to speak on a topic that deals more with immigration than anything else but I believe these essays deal with a wide range of topics on multiculturalism rather than just immigration. Also I believe she uses Pathos more than anything to try to appeal to our emotions and believe what she is saying. She wants us to uses phrases such as “in this blood-splattered decade” and “violently destabilizing the traditional concept of nation can be” to draw us in and put a dramatic emphasis on the problem at hand. I believe she needs to have more logos and ethos to make this essay credible. In order for her to be more credible I believe she would have had to grow up in America or to have stayed in America rather than flee to Canada.
Although Mukherjee does not have the authenticity to speak on this topic, I believe people that do, do not necessarily need to be born here. If someone is born in another country and either immigrates or comes to America at a young age than spends the rest of their life here than they are credible enough. For example if someone moves from India with their parents and are forced to begin a completely new life but still keep their cultural ways they could write in favor of the multiculturalism side. If someone flees from India and refuses to keep most if not all of their culture with them but instead adopt the American culture than they are credible enough to speak for both sides. I believe the only people who are qualified to speak on behalf of the American identity are natural born American citizens. Although people from other countries who become American citizens are very passionate about America, there is a national pride unlike any other in that of natural American citizens.
Part Two
ReplyDeleteRacism always comes to mind with topics such as these. I will not get into much detail, but I believe that people who have a strong pride in their country where they were born does not mean they are racist by any means. Obviously people born in a wealthy suburb, unaware of the racist battles that occur every day are going to be slightly racist to only hang out with their race or people in their community but if someone just has pride in their country and is aware that racism occurs they are not racist. I know we are still dealing with the element of white supremacy but not everyone who is against multiculturalism believes they are better than everyone. Kimball and Martinez speak from totally different sides but still have elements that they agree on.
I thought many of the elements in each essay were interesting. In Martinez’ and Kimball’s essays I thought it was interesting that they both agreed whites were slowly becoming a minority. I had never thought that to be possible because we are so set on the fact that most of America is made up of whites because that is how it has always been but if we look around, that is not the truth. Our nation is becoming so diverse that whites have nearly the same population as every other race and to Kimball that is sickening. In Mukherjee’s essay I found it interesting that she said “It does not end until I show that I am minute by minute transforming America”. I thought this was crazy to think about because it is true that immigrants are changing our nation whether we approve of it or not. We are becoming more diverse everyday and other cultures are in a sense “taking over”. I know our nation will continue on this way but each person can have their own national pride and I will always have pride in our nation or at least what it was at the beginning!
After reading all three essays, I would have to say that I can identify with Bahrati Mukherjee’s essay. Her essay “Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation” was about all the factors that led to her America, and how she feels about America’s current cultural element. Her stance was for the American culture to be changed through a transformative process, and not just adopting a new stance. Mukherjee talks about how American culture, since it always has been a melting pot, that we constantly work to make sure that our cultures fuse together and form a unique “American” culture that would be one entirely of its own. She lived in Canada for awhile, which has a “cultural mosaic” which basically means that there is no real blend of race and ethnicity, that it is still very separated.
ReplyDeleteNot one American has more of a right to be an authority on all things American. America is a country based upon a sort of idea of a melting pot. A sort of meshing of cultures and ideas, and we have a country where our freedoms protect the rights of speech. Mukherjee’s viewpoint on America is much different than Kimball’s or Martinez’s, but she still has the authority to discuss and be authoritative on American culture. Being a non-natural born citizen, she chose from her own free will to live in America, so she has quite the reason to have chosen America. She chose America over Canada, because in Canada there is a definite separation of cultures and ethnicities, and in America, there is room for a looser definition of culture, allowing for a cultural fusion. She suggests that we think not in terms of “us” or “them” but as “we”, a term that allows for the transformation of Americas population over time.
Robert Kimble discussed how hyphenation (a term such as African-American) is not a good way to describe ones culture, because the separation of the old world culture and new American culture is made apparent. Kimble does have a point in discussing that some immigrants are not assimilating to American culture, and not learning the English language. He is concerned that these immigrants are not thinking of or identifying themselves as Americans. This could be a problem, because a country populated by individuals who do not identify themselves as members of that country is not a country, but more of a place where people live. Kimble also states that multiculturalism “weakens the social bonds of them community at large.” I can see where he is coming from, but I wonder just how much the social bonds are weakened. It makes sense that immigrants who moved here from another country would live in the same geographic location as other immigrants from that same country. One could argue that they are living in a community, with a strong social bond. I think Kimble is worried that these groups will not mesh together with other cultures, and form the supposed melting pot of the United States. If they do not blend in with other cultures, it forms more of a “cultural mosaic” instead of a fusion of all different cultures.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteIn Elizabeth Martinez’s article, she described the supposed portrait of the American family in the 1940’s. This was a white, middle-class family with a son and daughter and a dog, living in a home with a white picket fence surrounding it. She talked about how this was the sort of mold that American families were expected to fit into, or at least during that time period seemed to be the social norm. With the Caucasian population decreasing in comparison to the rising minority population, she thinks this old fashioned American identity is out of date and needs to be replaced with a more current and appropriate face. She states that a new national identity could make way for a more unified society with humanity based on cooperation rather than competition. I can agree with this to some extent, because it seems like the “American Identity” might not be accurate with today’s population fluctuation.
All in all, I feel that I can relate to Mukherjee’s viewpoint on American multiculturalism. I feel that her idea of how culture should be meshed together fits America’s ideals of the “melting pot” of culture. The idea of the American national Identity being a constantly evolving portrait of our population is one that we can be hopeful to achieve. As it stands, I feel that our country could do a better job embracing all of it’s people’s culture. She had a more moderate stance on this issue, and her essay had a positive tone to that expressed hope for America’s future. Since she was raised in Calcutta, then lived in Canada, and finally chose to live in America, she has every reason to discuss the topic of immigration. Her experiences give a new light to this topic, because hearing the opinions of an immigrant who gained citizenship is an interesting new perspective and it gives you a feel as to what she went through to end up in America. I would consider her to be as American as any natural born citizen. Even possible, she could be considered more American than some natural born citizens. Her choosing to live in America proves that America could possibly be one of the greatest countries in protecting our freedoms. America’s identity should be tailored to its ever growing cultural populations, which are a sort of tie-dyed mix of ethnicities and cultures. All cultures should be recognized, and not one culture should be made more dominant than others.
-m. labyk
I agree with the essay Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two- Way Transformation. The author is coming from a position where she is facing this issue head on. She appreciates her American citizenship and chooses to live here, because she’s coming from a culture where she didn’t have as many rights. She also originally came to the US for educational purposes, so she is obviously very educated. While living in Canada and the US she has realized, that while the picture of American boasts that it is multicultural and accepting to new cultures, at the same time it shows ways of being the opposite in thinking terms. Yes, obviously the country accepted her, and even changed her into a new and more free person, but there is more then her transformation, hence the “two way street”.While America is accepting of immigrants, in our minds there is still an “us” “them” mentality, instead of a We. It is essentially “ they” have to find their way like everyone else, instead of we all have to find our way. The fact that a place in Florida or different parts of the country are trying to teach that being American means being superior, is not only encouraging and ignorant attitude, and limiting education, but it also completely ignores the fact that American is populated by immigrants, whether it be ones coming in today, or ones that came here decades ago. Unless you’re a Native American, then you are someone in a family of an immigrant. The many cultures and views that are held by everyone in this country are what make us free. There is no stereotypical American. Yet, according to her essay that ideal seems to be leaning toward the average white majority. I agree with this notion. There has to be a more open view in people’s minds. Just because people are accepted into the country doesn’t mean they are automatically accepted into our minds as equal American citizens. If we let down our defenses, then maybe we can all be more open to the fact that immigrants shape America. If we adopt an actual “we” mentality then we can become a stronger nation, and have a healthier mindset that encourages moving forward and crossing cultural boundries, and if we can achieve this than we could know the real meaning of Multiculturalism. It is a true that it is a two way street. It takes the person immigrating, and also those who are already in the country.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all three essays more carefully, it really has opened my eyes to a lot of new concepts about America. We, unlike many other countries, seem to love the idea of the melting pot in which we live. This is a great thing. Thinking about what Mukherjee was saying about how in Calcutta, your background was so treasured and known, it’s interesting how in America, we seem to appreciate the mutts. There is no such thing as a true America, minus the Native Americans, because, like many of the articles said, we were built on settlers. People came to America for a number of different reasons: political freedom, religious freedom, to start over, to achieve wealth and the “American dream.” All these reasons seem good to me, but do we, as Americans, truly treasure the diversity that we are so blessed to have? I think we don’t. There is so much prejudice still in America all the time. Whether it’s comedians and the media making jokes about different cultures, or just the way we seem to neglect anything that isn’t the same as us. This is not to say that all American’s are like this (obviously) but considering what America was built on, it seems like we should be a lot more open to immigration and multiculturalism. Let me summarize the basic ideas of the three different essays.
ReplyDeleteRoger Kimball’s essay, “Institutionalizing Our Demise: America vs. Multiculturalism” has to do with the fact that we as Americans are not as patriotic as we seem. We’re more focused on the different cultures and ethnicities in America than on the history of how we became the great country that we are. He compares and contrasts the difference between Robert Frost speaking at the inauguration of John F. Kennedy and Maya Angelou speaking at the inauguration 32 years later. Frost spoke about the heroic deeds of the founding fathers of America, whereas Angelou spoke about the different ethnicities we have in America and how they’ve all been suppressed at some point in time. Kimball believes we should get back into our National patriotism and educate more on the history of America than our culture. This point is interesting because perhaps the people who are taught the most about the American history are the immigrants trying to receive citizenship. So in regards to the question of who is qualified to speak about all things American, I think immigrants are more prone to knowing American history a lot more than American culture.
Martinez’s essay, “Reinventing ‘America’: Call for a New National Identity,” discusses almost the opposite side of Kimball’s. The essay starts with discussing one of America’s most beloved series, “Dick and Jane,” which is an aid used to teach elementary school children how to read. This series depicted the American family as a middle-class, nuclear white family full of family values and unfortunately, not much diversity. Martinez was not impressed with this because it really doesn’t depict the real lives of most American families. She then goes to discuss a few myths about America that should be cleared up, the one I found most interesting was “the great white origin myth,” which basically states that the way we perceive our own history is a little skewed. The whole story of Columbus discovering America was ridiculous, since obviously Native Americans were here first, and also the fact that 80 million people already lived here. We like to think of our history as brighter, so we skew the story in order to make it seem like we discovered it. I agree more so on Martinez’s essay, however; I think that America is still growing and will hopefully one day become completely understanding of the fact that we are a country built on immigrants and we should be proud of that. We are truly a melting pot and it should be looked at as a good thing.
ReplyDeleteMukherjee’s essay, “Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation,” has a more mild opinion on the issue of multiculturalism. She was born in Calcutta in a very traditionally Hindu home, where their identity was based on their culture and family. She was to continue in this traditional lifestyle until her father sent her to the United States to take a creative writing class. After being here for a few years she fell in love and married an American (originally from Canada). After this she moved to Canada and saw how against multiculturalism they are. They don’t see anyone who isn’t Caucasian as true Canadian. This was surprising to Mukherjee, she liked the way Americans treated immigrants better. She is proud to be an American, and that goes back to the point I made earlier on how immigrants who gain citizenship truly deserve the right and respect to be treated as an American. They choose to come here to live, unlike people who were originally born here. Mykherjee believes we should look so much into separating different kinds of citizens. We are all one, we’re all American; our culturally identity and our American history should merge into one. We shouldn’t focus so much on foreigners, since we all come from different places originally. She believes the fact that we even have to hyphen words such as “African-America” is weird, since we are all just “Americans.” I agree with Mukherjee’s views to a certain extent. We shouldn’t be worried so much about where we came from, but where we are now, however; it is important to realize that we do have different backgrounds, because that is what makes America so unique. Most cities have places like China Town and I think it’s wonderful. It’s not segregating, but introducing people who may not know much about the Country, to a different culture. Our cultural diversity is what makes American culture so unique.
Part I
ReplyDeleteThroughout Ms. Mukherjee’s article, it is prevalent that her position is one of opposition. Throughout the article she has numerous ways of putting the way a country lives down, even if it is her own country. Whether it is the way that the Indian culture she grew up in disagrees with changing any aspect of life, the way Canada often times does not truly accept the people who have a different skin tone, or the way the United States hyphenates ethnicity.
Mukherjee grew up in a privileged Indian family, and it is easy to see this because her father sent her and her sisters to an all girl school prior to sending them to the United States to further her education. Her father did not expect for her to go out and marry a man while she was in the United States though. He had wanted a pre-arranged marriage just like most of the normal Indian marriages are, but instead she married a Canadian citizen and went on to live with him for over a decade up in Canada. The fact that she did this would be considered by the Indian culture to be a terrible thing. The way that Mukherjee would have been looked at if she would have ever went back to her Indian society would not have been the most welcoming homecoming that there has ever been to say the least. However, Mukherjee was able to do things that are very impressive because she realized that she had her own dreams and aspirations rather than just following the typical Indian lifestyle. The Indian lifestyle is one that does not like change, whether it be to traditions or any type of inter-lifestyle marriages. The reason for this is because they feel that their culture is the correct one to live by. Often times they do not approve of the way that other cultures live all the way down to their values. Mukherjee does discuss a valid point to the Indians that do move over to North America and do not give up their past beliefs.
On most University campuses a student can see numerous Indian professors, and many of them according to Mukherjee do not agree with the Indian people who live in North America and adopt the ways of the people here. She points out that this is quite the hypocritical standpoint. The fact that they are living in the country and following our capitalistic ways is something that a true Indian would never do, and just by doing so they are moving away from the traditional Indian culture that they are supposedly so supportive of. The Indian beliefs are not the only people that she points out, as mentioned before she does go after the Canadian and United States way of living also.
Part II
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, Mukherjee said that she did not often feel welcomed because she had a darker skin tone. She even points out the fact that when many Indian people were killed in an airplane bombing that the government sent its’ regards to the Indian government. This would have been a nice thing to do, but many of the people on the plane were citizens of Canada. The fact that the Canadian government did not really even look at these people as their own is what Mukherjee is trying to point out.
The United States has its’ downfalls as well according to Mukherjee. To her, it seems like the United States does not really want to accept other people in the way of calling them Americans. By putting a hyphen in front of American, it can sometimes seem like they are separating the minorities from the rest of America. That is not the only thing that she had to say about Americans though. She also tells of how the Indian and other cultures talk about the ways the youth of our nation acts recklessly. The older generations of the culture view the way the children of our country are disrespectful, and if they send their children over here they preach to them about how they should not start acting like the youth of our nation. The main point she stresses is that the United States is not the “melting pot” that it is supposed to be.
In essence, it seemed like there was a common point that Mukherjee was trying to point out. She was trying to show that each of these societies show a certain type of non-acceptance. The Indians do not really want to involve themselves with other cultures through marriage. The people of the United states want to be able to separate them by hyphenating what they call them examples being “Asian-American” and “Mexican American.
Overall throughout the entire article Mukherjee shares what she has seen throughout living in the three different countries. She also tells about the common held beliefs throughout the article. She gives valid points from all different angle about each of the countries that she lived in, including the flaws with all of them. The final topic she really goes into is what she believes all three of the countries could do to make them better places to live. She tells about how the countries should just be more accepting of the other people, and not separating them from the group. Through the entire article Mukherjee makes it seem like she is a very reliable source through all of her different experiences.
After reading Ms. Mukherjee’s essay, she makes it very well know her position is of opposition. In the beginning of the essay she talks about how her life had already been pre planned, her father had written out her goals by her father. She was to spend two years studying creative writing; then she was to marry a man selected by her father and live the rest of her life being a house wife in the city where she was born and raised. Mukherjee was sheltered all her life, her father was always there to look over her then, when her father sent her to the United States for a better education this was her first time out on her own without her father looking over her and naturally she felt new feeling for the first time and it eventually lead to her falling in love and getting married over a short period of time. Since her husband was from Canada she spent the first ten years of her marriage living there, she states that this is where she started to notice the way the world views immigrant and how they identify people base on their religion and/or color. In Canada she states “Canada refuses to renovate its national self-image to include its changing complexion”, which mean Canada identifies you as Canadian as long as you speak the Canadian national languages of English and French and your skin is white. One example she gives on how Canadians of color were treated as not real Canadians, is when a terrorist bomb on a jet killed 329 passengers, ninety percent of whom were Canadians of Indian origin, the prime minister of Canada offered condolences for India’s loss. This shows that though those people may have lived there whole life in Canada that their own people are not willing to accept them because of the color of their skin. The author then gets on the topic of being a legalized citizen; she states how she is a citizen by choice, I think she was trying to get to the point that immigrants that are refugee are guided though American society but I don’t think that is the case. If anything people that are from different countries that are not born in the us go through more trouble than any other person, some American people look down on them and a lot blame immigrants for the high unemployment rate. I think that before coming to this country she had the perfect picture of how America is the promise land and when she got here she realized that though America is a great place to start a life, it’s also so culturally diverse that it hard to follow your religion or even be able to identify what group you belong to. Mukherjee talks about how whites are losing their status as the dominate race in the United States and she uses the sentence “America’s complexion is browning daily. Though darker skin color is starting to be the dominant skin color she talks how still over half Americans favor limiting legal immigration and how eighty percent favoring getting deporting undocumented aliens. This is just another example that shows how though darker skin color becoming dominant is because of all the immigrants moving to the United States people are losing their way of thought and are trying to keep people out that is in the same position that there family or they once were. Though I can’t relate to the author, being an immigrant that was born and raised in another country where culture and religion was the main way of life then having to move to another country where there way of life is totally different, culture isn’t really important. I can understand the point the author is making, how in today’s world especially in the United States it is hard to identify yourself because there is so many thing you can identify yourself with so it is very easily to have an identity crisis.
ReplyDeleteIn Bharati Mukherjee’s essay “Beyond Multiculturalis: A Two-Way Transformation, Mukherjee’s purpose is to mediate the positions in Martinez and Kimball’s essays. She feels we need to neither define America by one ethnicity or many ethnicities, but instead drop our view on ethnicity in general and rather than seeing ‘us’ and ‘them’, see our country as ‘we’. Mukherjee is a naturalized United States citizen born in India, and currently living in Canada. She came to the United States to attend a writing seminar at Paul Engle’s Writers Workshop. She came from an arranged marriage in her homeland but ended up falling in love with a Canadian man in her class and got married at a lawyer’s office during lunch one day.
ReplyDeleteMukherjee really didn’t give any examples of times when she was persecuted against because of her culture or even forced to conform to America’s or Canada’s. She feels that rather than being a hyphenised American, meaning African-American, Indian-American etc.., if we should view ourselves as simply Americans. By removing the hyphen, and describing ourselves as Americans, she feels demands that the nation deliver the promises of the American dream and the American Constitution to all its citizens. She makes that point that multiculturalism emphasizes the differences between racial heritages, which can lead to ‘dehumanization of the different.’ She states that dehumanization them leads to discrimination which can ultimately lead to genocide.
Out of the three essays I identify best with Mukherjee’s. Although being born in America, I can’t relate with some of her essay, I do agree with the point she makes on removing the hyphen. I feel that multiculturalism is not a good thing for America. Without a cultural identity and having several cultures living in the same country (most cultures with the feeling that theirs is superior whether they realize it or not), there will always be conflict amongst the different cultures. By viewing oneself as a hyphenised American, they view themselves as only partially being American.
Kimball’s essay is completely against multiculturalism. He makes statements such as “multiculturalism and “affirmative action” are allies in the assault on the institution of American identitiy.” He acknowledges that America did start out as a country of Immigrants, yet those immigrants came from Europe, shaping America into a European like culture. He feels the current wave of immigration is dangerous to our nation and its identity. He says the immigrants are coming over in mass numbers and failing to adapt to American society and accept the ideals and values of American citizens, rather bringing over and keeping all of their own cultural practices and values. This essentially will destroy America’s society. He claims multiculturalism takes tolls on everything from our educational system to our social bonds of community at large. I agree that those who come to America should assimilate to our culture. Those who come here freely leave their homelands by their own will to come to America, yet once they get here they refuse to let go of their old cultural practices and pride in their homeland. Not to sound ignorant or racist but I don’t understand why if their culture was so great they didn’t just stay where they were. It doesn’t make sense to me why someone would bring their foreign cultural practices to a country founded on European ideals and the discrimination of non citizens and expect everything to go smoothly.
I feel Mukherjee has some authenticity to talk about immigration and multiculturalism for America, being an Immigrant from a culture much different that America’s.
-DylanPalchesko
PART ONE:
ReplyDeleteBharati Mukherjee’s essay “Beyond Multiculturalism: A Two-Way Transformation” is most definitely a mediatory essay between the two articles we talked about briefly in our book. Mukherjee was born into a wealthier family in Calcutta but eventually became an American citizen. Coming from a strong culture, she was supposed to marry a preselected Bengali bridegroom. That all flew out of the window when she came to the United States. Mukherjee came to Iowa to be exact, to pursue her education studying Creative Writing at Paul Engle’s Writer’s Workshop in which she without a doubt succeeded in. Today she is known as the Distinguished Professor of English at the University of California at Berkeley. In her essay she is writing to mediate between people who support Elizabeth Martinez’s view to generate a new national identity based on the multicultural mosaic or Roger Kimball’s view to defend the Euro-Protestant “core” of American identity.
I think that I would probably identify best with Bharati Mukherjee’s ideas even though I am a Caucasian American. I probably cannot understand fully what she feels, but her theory is the closest one I could see eye to eye with. Roger Kimball just thinks that multiculturalism is weakening America day by day and I do not feel that this is entirely true. I also do not completely agree with Elizabeth Martinez’s position either. She just wants to replace the traditional Anglo-American identity all together and I am not okay with that. Mukherjee makes very valid points when mediating between the two disputes. I am usually a pretty neutral person anyway, unless it is something I feel strongly about. Mukherjee shows that she is what I like to call an ‘American foreigner’ and I like that about her. The book said her patriotism was obviously emotional and I would have to back that up one hundred percent. She made it very clear that she is an American by choice and that she has made social, political, and emotional commitments to our country. She also lets us know that she has been tested because of her racial identity and skin color. Being in Canada for three years was predominantly cruel for Mukherjee. She described Canada as a country that proudly “resists the policy and process of cultural fusion”.
PART TWO:
ReplyDeleteMukherjee’s main view is just trying to blend the different mix of cultures and races that make up the United States today. She presents reasons to oppose what the book referred to as ethnic “purity”. What the book meant by this is that wars result when people divide according to religious and ethnic backgrounds. When she was in Canada, Mukherjee noticed that the multicultural program created second class, marginal populations. This also means that by using hyphen in America problems are created for non-whites. Mukherjee does her best to find the common ground between the two articles. She offers a “win-win” situation which is exactly what the mediatory essay is all about. I feel like that is the best conciliation there is between Martinez’s and Kimball’s particular views. Simply by removing the need to prove one’s culture more superior to other’s cultures, we can eliminate the problems that lay between these two articles and the opinions stated in them.
I absolutely feel that Mukherjee has the authenticity to discuss things like immigration and multiculturalism for America. She has lived through it and proven this through her writing. I think that Mukherjee is a living, breathing example of immigration and multiculturalism. She seems to have hands on experience in the real world with this. She has the same rights, to an extent, as every natural born United States citizen. I just do not think it is right to not allow someone to speak about American topics and ideas when they have chosen to come to the United States for a reason. Like I said above, Mukherjee is obviously a very patriotic person. By her going to Canada, Mukherjee learned to embrace America even more. Even if she was just a normal naturalized citizen, I would still think she would have the Freedom of Speech and be able to talk about whatever it is she wanted to. She directly says in her article, “I have earned the right to think of myself as an American” and I totally agree with this.
It is even hard for people like me, being a natural born United States citizen, to understand immigration and multiculturalism fully. I do not believe for one second that you have to be born here to be an authority on American things. If you think about it most of us would not even be here today if our ancestors did not migrate or “immigrate” here. Almost everyone in the United States is mixed with two different nationalities anyway. People stereotype me as being “white” when in all reality I am Romanian, Irish, French, Italian, and even part Cherokee Indian. America truly might be the blend Mukherjee is looking for. The country just needs a little help becoming that ‘perfect’ blend of the different races and cultures from around the globe.