Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold;
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.[122]
Uniformity and unity within, hostility and spoils from without—this is the old ideal of the happy society, founded on the patriotism of the little Greek cities in their petty isolation.
But now this point of view of the state, appropriate in its origin, is applied uncritically to a great modern nation, with a hundred cities larger than any one of ancient Greece, with its inhabitants drawn from the ends of the earth—such a nation shall also present a uniformity of blood, speech and loyalty. What is the method by which such an end can be achieved? What is the theory by which such an end can be justified?
Dr. I. Berkson in his “Theories of Americanization” has developed in detail four types of theory for the relation of the sub-groups, especially the immigrant sub-groups, to the American nation. Of these the first two imply uniformity, “Americanization” by imposing the social and cultural standards of the Anglo-Saxon group on the newer arrivals; the “Melting-Pot” by which uniformity is to be achieved through a general admixture and intermingling, racial or social. The viewpoint of Americanization has been mentioned previously in this study—the view that the United States ought to be a homogeneous people, and that the proper standard of homogeneity is that of the white, Protestant, gentile group, of Anglo-Saxon origin. The newer arrivals are expected to forget their native languages and habits, to throw off their former loyalties, to copy the standards of life which they see already established in this country. The new loyalty is conceived as antagonistic to the old; the demands of democracy that the new citizen also shall express himself are quite disregarded. The rapidity of the process of intermarriage among many immigrant groups, and the still greater speed of social adaptation and assimilation are evidences that this theory has something in its favor. The awakening group loyalties which its repressive methods arouse show definitely that it has not the final word. As Lewis S. Gannet put it:
[123]We are forcing the Jew to choose between assimilation with complete loss of group identity, and the establishment of entirely independent cultural institutions—and we are shoving him more and more toward the latter choice.... It is not so much anti-Semitism, Christian theology, or Jewish traits that stand in the way as the smug Anglo-Saxon tradition of exclusiveness and self-sufficiency.
A variation of this, which posits uniformity, but not the uniformity of one group imposed on all the rest, is the Melting-Pot theory. The term was fathered by Israel Zangwill, who made the young Jewish immigrant exclaim:
[124]America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming!—Here you stand, good folks, think I, when I see you at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you come to—these are the fires of God. A fig for your feuds and your vendettas! German and Frenchman, Irishman and English, Jews and Russians, into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American!