America's melting pot works in a new way. Melting pot of empires

Melting pot model

In the 1920s, Angloconformism gave way to a new model of ethnic development, the "melting pot" or "melting pot". This model occupies a special place in the history of American social thought, because the basic social ideal, which was that in a truly free, democratic society, people would strive to live among racially-ethnic mixed neighbors, existed in the United States for a long time. is a variant of the "amalgamation" theory that arose immediately after the American Revolution, i.e. free fusion of representatives of various European peoples and cultures. The "melting pot" along with the theory of Angloconformism formed the theoretical core of the classical school of ethnicity in the United States of America. As M. Gordon wrote, "although Anglo-conformism in its various manifestations was the predominant ideology of assimilation, in American historical practice there was also a competing model with more general and idealistic tones, which had its adherents from the 18th century, and then successors."

By the way, about the term. It is associated with the title of the play by the British journalist and playwright I. Zanguill, who often came to the USA and knew the life of this country. The essence of the play "The Melting Pot" was that in the United States of America there was a merging of various peoples and their national cultures, as a result, a single American nation was formed. The protagonist of the play, a young immigrant from Russia, Horace Alger, looking from a ship that arrived in the port of New York, exclaimed: “America is the greatest melting pot created by God, in which all the peoples of Europe are fused ... Germans and French, Irish and English , Jews and Russians - all into this crucible. This is how God creates a nation of Americans."

And in the future, I. Zanguill imagined the United States of America as a kind of gigantic "cauldron" capable of digesting and making homogeneous the entire multilingual and in many respects motley mass of the newcomer population. The American researcher G. Morgan stated in his work "America Without Ethnicity" that this "was the hope for America, the only way to turn millions of people with different attitudes, values ​​and lifestyles into a homogeneous group for the purpose of peaceful coexistence regardless of their history."

The play was staged at the Columbia Theater in Washington in October 1908 and was a great success. President T. Roosevelt, who was present at the performance, gave a high assessment to the play. The play was also supported by one of the politicians of that time, W. Bryan, who liked the idea expressed by I. Zanguill. He, in particular, noted: "Great were the Greek, Slav, Celt, Teuton and Saxon; but greater than them are the Americans, combining the dignity of each of them." After Washington, the play went to Chicago for 6 months, 136 performances were shown in New York. It was staged in many cities of the country, and in 1914 - in London. As noted in the press of those years, the author of "The Melting Pot" emphasized that a genuine, real American must be an American of mixed origin.

At a time when the play was staged in many theaters of the country, the question of immigration was being sharply debated among the public and specialists. In 1916, the government publishing house published the report of a special commission chaired by W. P. Dillingham on immigration issues in the amount of 42 volumes. The central message of the report was that immigrants from southern and eastern Europe threatened American society and the core of the American nation by being a source of crime, disease, and social conflict. Regarding this report, a number of specialists in the field of interethnic relations noted that "a forty-two-volume publication containing statistical data was collected to prove the unworthiness of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe to become Americans." I. Zanguill assured his readers that the arrival of "new" immigrants did not pose not only a threat, but also no cause for concern.

A few years later, the Literary Digest wrote the following about Zanguill: "He used a phrase that would long delay the restriction of immigration to America."

And although not everyone in the scientific world liked Zanguill's concept of a mixed American nation (it was actively rejected by such authoritative scientists as E. Ross and F. Steimer), this theory also found many admirers. For example, an article published in one of the magazines called "Plays that make people think" thanked Zanguill for drawing attention to a real social problem in America, the issue of immigration. The article noted, in part: "No sane person would deny that the social future of the country depends mainly on the answer to this question. Zanguilla's play was successful largely because of the problem statement."

One way or another, the term "melting pot" has received its citizenship since the 20s of the twentieth century, becoming more and more widespread both in public life and in science. One of the main paradigms of US ethnic development in the 20th century was called the "melting pot". According to the American researcher A. Mann, "the very phrase "melting pot" has become a national symbol of this century." In accordance with this paradigm, the formation of the American national identity had to proceed according to the formula of "fusion", "mixing" of all peoples, while both their cultural and biological mixing was assumed. The formulated theoretical concept was of an apologetic nature in the sense that it denied the existence of any conflicts in society - social or ethnic.

In general, the phenomenon of ethnic mixing of immigrants from the most diverse countries and peoples was noted and recorded in the literature as early as the 18th century. Thus, Tom Paine, in his pamphlet entitled "The Common Feeling", written in 1776, noted that "Americans are not transplanted English. They are a mixture of many European peoples, this is a nation of immigrants." The image of the American people as a single nation with a special culture and traditions was developed by writers, publicists, poets, and writers after Payne. The idea of ​​T. Payne was actively supported by the American writer of French origin J. Krevker in "Letters from an American Farmer", published in Europe as early as 1782, where he drew attention to the fact that in America there is such a mixture of blood that cannot be found in any other country. In particular, he wrote: "Here representatives of all nations are mixed into a new race of people." And he saw the main way to this in interethnic marriages. "Who is he, the American, this new man?"

J. Krevker. - He is not a European or a descendant of a European, therefore, this is a strange mixture of blood that you will not find in any other country. I can point you to a family where the grandfather was English, and his wife is Danish, their son is married to a French woman, they have four sons, whose wives are representatives of different nations. He is American...".

The quoted passage is an indication of the traditional approach to the problem of the American nation. Although Kreveker did not use the term "melting pot", he nevertheless spoke of representatives of various nations, fused in the process of modernization into a new community of people and creating a new American culture. At the same time, as noted in the literature, Creveker and his followers said almost nothing about what traditions, customs and habits would make up this new American culture.

The myth of Americanization created by Krevker, according to G. Gerstle, consisted of four main provisions: firstly, European immigrants wanted to part with the way of life of the Old World and become Americans without fail; secondly, Americanization was quick and easy, since the immigrants had no significant obstacles in its path; thirdly, Americanization "fused" immigrants into a single race, culture, nation, regardless of space and time; and fourth, immigrants perceived Americanization as a liberation from slavery, poverty, and Old World coercion.

Life later showed how difficult the path of immigrants into American society turned out to be, and many of Krevker's provisions were not implemented in practice and turned out to be a myth. Nevertheless, the optimistic and progressive concept of the "melting pot" found its supporters in the 19th century. So, she was supported by one of the most influential intellectuals of that time, an American of English origin R. Emerson. Great popularity at the end of the XIX century. received a four-volume edition of T. Roosevelt (at that time a historian and writer) entitled "Victory over the West", where the author wrote about the border, sang the strengthening of American power and the colonization of the West, planned the use of force outside the continental borders of the United States to expand their sphere of influence. The book was admired and praised by Harvard scholars. As N. Glaser noted in the article "The American Epic Poem: Then and Now", published in the journal "Public Interest" in 1998, during the colonization of the West, T. Roosevelt "exalted the role of only one element of the American population, namely, English-speaking people and did not notice others, which undoubtedly indicates a lack of political correctness."

However, the idea of ​​a "melting pot" received its real theoretical formulation in the writings of the leading American historian F.J. Turner. The American researcher J. Bennett, who studied the scientific work of F. Turner, noted that Turner was not the first to pay attention to the border factor as a unique driving force in the formation and development of the American nation. Even B. Franklin and T. Jefferson believed that the constant advance of immigrants to the West contributed to the growth of cities and the development of American democracy. A number of historians have also pointed out that American democracy took shape as the frontier moved westward. However, all these views, J. Bennett continued, had little effect on the American public opinion of those years, the country was not ready to accept the boundary hypothesis. The intellectual climate in the United States regarding it changed later, and to a greater extent thanks to F. Turner.

F. Turner's Peru owns four books: "The Rise of the New West", "The Significance of Sections in American History", "The United States 1830 - 1850: A Nation and Its Sections", "The Frontier in American History". The latter is a collection of articles, the most famous of which is an article entitled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", which outlines the scholar's creed on American ethnicity. The article was based on the report of F. Turner, with which he spoke in 1893 at a meeting of the American Historical Association and which became an event in the history of American scientific thought. The report stressed that the evolution of a complex national identity has been central to understanding American history, and that one of the most important factors in understanding American society is the frontier factor. "In the crucible of the frontier, immigrants were Americanized, liberated, and mixed into an American race distinct from the Anglo-Saxon, both in national and other characteristics." Thus, the scientist rejected the conclusions that dominated at that time in the United States of the Anglo-Saxon school, which considered the United States as a European civilization transferred to the New World.

Many American historians of the late nineteenth century, educated at German universities, unreservedly accepted the idea that American institutions were fundamentally derived from Anglo-Saxon and ultimately Teutonic sources. A prominent representative of the Anglo-Saxon school was the influential American historian Herbert Adams, whose lectures were attended by F. Turner. Turner did not share his teacher's point of view that American institutions are European institutions.

Assessing the role of Europeans in shaping American society, Turner believed that American institutions basically have much in common with European ones, with particular emphasis on their differences. In his opinion, the European, in order to survive in the new conditions, had to adapt to these conditions. Gradually, he triumphed over savagery, conquered the desert and transformed it. Thus, as the border moved to the West, European influence decreased, civilization became American. The western regions of the continent, mastered by settlers, were for Turner a melting pot (although this term was not used by the historian), where various European peoples mixed, overcoming localism, disunity and enmity. The American researcher R. Billington, in his book dedicated to F. Turner, wrote the following: "For Turner, the frontier was the main force in creating the American nation and fostering loyalty among its peoples."

For many years, a significant number of American and European social scientists were under the influence of Turner's theory. The secret of popularity was that Turner not only drew attention, in contrast to previous historiography, to the importance of geographical and economic factors, but offered a historical explanation of American social development, based primarily on the peculiar conditions of the formation of the United States. F. Turner put forward the thesis about the special "creative" role of the colonization of "free" Western lands in the creation of American society and the "unique" ideals of American democracy. West The presence of free land and the continuous advance of settlements on

The West explains the development of America." In the beginning, the "frontier" was the Atlantic coast; it was the "frontier" of Europe. The movement of the "frontier" to the West meant a gradual removal from the influence of Europe and a steady increase in movement along the American path. "To study the movement, these people who were brought up under the influence of new conditions, their political, economic and social results means to study American history," wrote F. Turner.

Turner and his followers proceeded in their analysis from the primary role of the geographic environment, "environment". This meant that the geographical factor was declared the main determinant of the historical process. This methodology was the basis of the theory of sections, with which Turner supplemented his concept. He determined its essence by the fact that during the resettlement of immigrants, different geographical regions arose in front of them. There was an interaction between immigration flows and new geographic regions. The result was a combination of two factors, land and people, creating different societies in different sections.

According to Turner, the United States was presented as a federation of various sections (regions): West, Midwest, Southwest, Northwest, East, section of the Atlantic coast, New England, South and many others. The main strategies in their relationship were agreement and compromise. He saw the sectional difference as the source of the future development of American society, in which diversity will remain, and it will manifest itself in the socio-economic contrasts and competitions of various regions. "The importance of sections in American history is such," wrote F. Turner, "that ... we should revise our history in terms of this factor." Giving an assessment of Turner's theory, J. Highem noted the following: "He considered the West as a huge melting pot of European peoples and his whole approach to American history can be understood as a way of asserting the primacy of the geographical factor over racial and cultural. Turner's pluralism is the assertion of a sectional (regional ) diversity as a dynamic principle in American life."

Turner's "sectionism" has been widely discussed among specialists. Some agreed with Turner's views, others denied.

The interpretation of the "melting pot" concept by F. Turner was somewhat different from the interpretation of I. Zanguill. If the latter believed that all immigrants without exception, national minorities - the British, Germans, French, Slavs, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, representatives of the black and yellow races succumb to the action of the "cauldron", then F. Turner, speaking of the mixing of representatives of different peoples meant primarily "old" immigration.

At the end of the 19th century, when the migration movements in the United States were largely over, Turner's "migrant melting pot" gave way to the "urban melting pot". It was quite obvious that the main stage on which the ethnic development of America unfolded was its cities, their importance grew rapidly throughout the second half of the 19th century. and continued even more rapidly in the twentieth century. For example, at the end of the XIX century. - the beginning of the twentieth century. up to 80% of newly arrived immigrants settled in US cities. Here were the most favorable objective conditions for the assimilation of immigrants. However, large concentrations of immigrants of the same nationality in cities, their settlement in separate quarters, simultaneously stimulated ethnic rallying, the activities of ethnic organizations, etc. The latter was accelerated by the fact that ethnic organizations switched to English and assimilated in their activities to ordinary American organizations. Thus, the ethnocentric currents that develop in the urban setting, while remaining internally contradictory, generally contributed to assimilation.

The efficiency of the "urban melting pot" was strengthened by the immigration policy of the US ruling circles and immigration legislation. According to the authoritative American sociologist M. Gordon, "some researchers interpreted the "open door" policy of the first third of the 19th century as a reflection of the underlying belief in the effectiveness of the American "melting pot", the belief "that everyone can be absorbed and everyone can contribute in the development of a national character.

The theory of the "urban melting pot" found its development in the works of the sociologist of the University of Chicago, the founder of the Chicago school in the theory of race relations, R. Park. Under his leadership, as well as the active assistance of the leading American historian L. Wirth at the University of Chicago in the late 20s of the twentieth century. a course was first created on the problems of racial and ethnic relations, a scientific counteroffensive was launched against the Anglo-Saxon racists and supporters of 100% Americanization. In his well-known work "Race and Culture" R. Park tried to consider the problem of immigrants and Negroes in the context of the global process of assimilation affecting both European nations and Asian races. As J. Highem wrote, "if we look closely at Park's conceptual scheme, we will find an improved version of the classic American ideal of assimilation, continued by him from some radicals who included both black Americans and immigrants in this process."

Focusing on the urban lifestyle, R. Park emphasized that it is he who brings people together. He wrote: "... Every society, every nation and every civilization is a boiling cauldron and thus contributes to the fusion of races, as a result of which new races and new cultures inevitably arise." The scientist believed that the process of assimilation would cover a global scale and in this way a new world civilization would arise. For him, the "melting pot" is the whole world. He put forward a model of the four-stage development of the process of inter-ethnic interactions in any multi-ethnic state: contacts, conflicts, adaptation and assimilation. Assimilation was the final stage in the cycle of interethnic relations. Moreover, for R. Park, assimilation was such a process in which not only the newcomer assimilated, adapting to new market conditions, but the society that accepted him also changed.

Having gone through the four-stage path of development, the national state, according to R. Park, will exhaust itself and the world will evolve towards the creation of a global cosmopolitan community. In this regard, he urged his colleagues to overcome national boundaries and learn to think in "global categories". Describing Park's assimilationist conception, noted race relations theorist P.L. Van den Berghe wrote: "cycle of race relations" For a wide variety of reasons, assimilationism seemed to be the most acceptable liberal way of solving the problems of national minorities for the ruling classes of centralized bureaucratic states, both capitalist and socialist.

Representatives of the Chicago Park school were prominent scientists M. Gordon, A. Rose, G. Allport, R. Williams, O. Kleinberg and others. It was this school that laid the so-called tradition of liberal assimilationism, according to which the main states was defined as a way of assimilation of various peoples, "grinding and absorbing them into a single whole." From the point of view of this concept, races and nations are dysfunctional in industrial societies, represent the legacy of previous eras and must eventually disappear under the influence of urbanization, industrialization, modernization.

The liberal academic establishment attached great importance to the educational system in achieving the homogenization of society. Characteristically, the 1927 presidential address to the National Education Association emphasized: "The great American school system is the starting point of the melting pot." It was the education system that was supposed to be the main mechanism in pursuing a policy aimed at the assimilation of ethnic groups, the mechanism that would give its results in the shortest possible time. In addition, in achieving the ideal of the "melting pot" its creators and followers saw the main way in mixed marriages, which indeed were the most important channel for the processes of natural assimilation. However, the attitude towards the fact of interethnic and interracial marriages on the part of the followers of the "melting pot" model was different. If one part welcomed the participation of people regardless of skin color in the "melting pot", as, for example, R. Emerson, to whom America seemed to be a state where the energy of the Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, people from all over Europe, as well as Africans, Polynesians, a new nation, religion, literature is being created, then a significant part did not leave a place in the "melting pot" for black Americans, Indians, etc.

Existing data on the dynamics of the number of mixed marriages in the country until the beginning of the 20th century. are very fragmentary and inaccurate in order to fully judge the effectiveness of the "melting pot". The lack of statistical data for the 18th century makes it impossible to determine the degree of assimilation of the population in the United States in this period. Subsequently, as a result of empirical research in one of the American states over the 30-year period of the 19th century. (1850 - 1880) it was concluded that the "melting pot" as a whole worked slowly during these years.

For later periods, there were also no data on the processes of ethnic mixing, which made it impossible to see a complete picture of the results of integration. This was the reason for some researchers to argue that the "melting pot" never existed. However, according to sociologist A. Mann, "millions of Americans of mixed origin knew otherwise. Interethnic marriages occurred and continue to occur, and those who doubt this should look around." Mixed marriages increased, for example, among Jews who were endogenous. Author of the article "Accumulation without assimilation?" E. Rosenthal gives the following figures: in the 30s of the twentieth century, the number of interethnic marriages among Jews was 6%, in 1957 - 7.2%, in 1960 - 11.5%. Surveys conducted among Jews in 1953 in Iowa showed 31% intermarriage, which caused concern for some Jewish leaders about the preservation of their ethnic group. Biological assimilation swept the Irish and other ethnic groups. By 1960, more than half of Irish men took a woman of another nationality as their life partner. According to the American sociologist T. Sowell, the Irish have become so Americanized that some of them complain about the loss of their distinctive individual features. Ethnically mixed marriages are typical for Italians and Poles, as evidenced by the following figures: in 1930, endogeneity was among Italians - 71%, Poles - 79%. The picture became completely different in 1960: endogeneity dropped to 27% and 33%, respectively. The increase in the proportion of families with spouses of other nationalities also occurred among Asian peoples, in particular, the Japanese. If in 1920 in Los Angeles, for example, only 2% of all marriages were mixed, then after the Second World War this figure rose to 11-12%, and by the end of the 1950s. amounted to more than 20%. As for the dynamics of the number of black-and-white marriages in the country for the first half of the 20th century, there are no exact data, since in most states such statistics have not been preserved and have not been published. However, on average, the proportion of black-and-white marriages, according to the American sociologist E. Frazier, did not exceed 3% even in large cities until 1940, and in the whole country it was many times lower. On the eve of World War II, 31 states (16 in the South, 15 in the North and West) still outlawed interracial marriages.

Along with biological assimilation, which to some extent captured various ethnic groups and racial minorities, social and cultural assimilation took place, but its development was also held back by racial discrimination, ethnic prejudices and prejudices, which was especially acute during the economic crisis of 1929-1933. In many places, immigrants were fired first, sometimes before black Americans, leading to the isolation of various ethnic groups and the persistence of "foreign" ghettos. The Indians also suffered from the crisis. They stopped receiving benefits, many of them from the reservations went to the cities in search of work. Racism intensified in the country, there was a wave of physical reprisals against blacks and immigrants, which caused a reaction of ethnocentrism on the part of national minorities and immigrant groups. This trend continued during the years of World War II, helped by discriminatory measures, in particular, restrictions on employment, despite the fact that there was a huge need for the use of immigrant labor. In general, the war period contributed to the influx of new ethnic groups, the improvement of their situation, etc. It was already mentioned above that during the Second World War, the United States entered into short-term agreements with Mexico on the use of Mexican workers, both in industry and in agriculture. economy. And Mexican immigrants enjoyed their share of the benefits of the war boom, but their wages remained lower than other workers for the same work. The American writer of Yugoslav origin L. Adamik wrote about this in his book "Nation of Nations", published in 1945.

The most difficult during the Second World War was the position of the Japanese national minority. The Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 on the naval base of Pearl Harbor caused a powerful anti-Japanese wave, prepared the majority of the population for the decision to place the Japanese in camps. On February 19, 1942, F. Roosevelt signed an emergency law, according to which persons of Japanese nationality, including those who had US citizenship, were subject to eviction from their former places of residence (mainly in California) and isolation. The American military authorities forced the Japanese to be evacuated and placed in concentration camps in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arkansas (a small part of the Japanese who remained in California were imprisoned). From March to November 1942, more than 100 thousand men, women and children were interned. The resettlement was carried out under the pretext of the need to protect the country from the espionage activities of Japanese agents. The financial losses of the Japanese, as a result of this essentially punitive operation, amounted to about 400,000,000. dollars (taking into account the price level of 1942). As an expert from the Center for Military History of the US War Department, D.Bask, believed, many years of forcing ideas about the growing expansionism of Japan and the resulting national security considerations were to blame for spy mania. The forced expulsion of 1942 was one of the most tragic and unjust events in US national history. Many of its dark pages have not yet been told.

The operation with the establishment of concentration camps during the war years for the "unreliable" did not stir up the American public, did not cause mass condemnation. The voices of protest, although they were heard, were isolated, in almost all publications a negative attitude towards the Japanese was pumped up, hysteria and hostility. The Japanese were periodically declared to be a potential threat to American security.

What was the attitude of the Japanese to the war? One part of the minority put forward the following motive: "We ... are not in a position to influence events, like the German-Americans in Hitler's seizure of Poland or the Italians living in the USA in Mussolini's war in Ethiopia." The other part of the Japanese insisted that "they are Americans" and proved the injustice of a special attitude towards them and even insisted on being drafted into the US Army to prove their patriotism towards their new homeland. Note that in 1942, all servicemen of Japanese nationality were discharged from the United States Army. And only in January 1943 did the recruitment of Nisei (Japanese settlers of the second generation) into the army begin, and most of the Japanese soldiers sought to find any opportunity to prove their loyalty to the United States. Overall, more than 300,000 Japanese Americans fought during the war. They were sent to the hottest spots. According to T. Sowell, "the experience of the tragic wartime was a turning point in the history of Japanese Americans."

President F. Roosevelt, whose order was carried out in 1942, already in 1944 publicly defended the loyalty of the Japanese living in the United States. That same year, the US Supreme Court declared "unconstitutional the act of internment of Japanese who are American citizens."

After the liberation of the Japanese from the camps, their return to normal life was not easy. Despite the fact that many Japanese who fought in the US Army were awarded high honors, despite the very rapid reorientation of American policy towards Japan towards a strategic alliance - political, military, economic and psychological - the legacy of the war in the form of anti-Japanese sentiment at large the American population continued to affect for a long time. There were many problems with the restoration of the economic position of the Japanese, especially in agriculture. White settlers, who seized Japanese plots in California during the war years, tried in 1944 to prevent the return of the former owners to the places of their former residence and business activities.

The situation of the German and Italian immigrants at the beginning of the war was complicated by their background, and their reaction to the war incorporated a complex set of ethnic ties and sentiments. As John F. Kennedy noted in his book Immigrant Nation, at the start of the war, only a small proportion of German Americans joined the pro-Nazi German-American Bund movement, many of whom left as soon as they discovered its true nature. During the war years, they served bravely in the US military and successfully integrated into the American system. As for the majority of Italian immigrants, strong internationalist, anti-fascist sentiments prevailed among them during the war years. In general, the Second World War contributed to the rapprochement of people of different races and nationalities on an anti-fascist basis, who fought together, worked in military production, etc. It is noteworthy that immigrants who in peacetime sympathized with their native countries fought against them in American troops. On this basis, some American scientists during the war years defended the thesis of the disappearance of ethnic groups and the achievement of a homogeneous society. Thus, the American researcher L. Warner wrote in 1945: "The future of American ethnic groups seems to be becoming problematic, it seems that they will soon merge." We find a similar opinion in the book "Ethnic Americans", in the preface to which the well-known theorist in the field of interethnic relations I. Winger noted that immediately after the war, many Americans decided that all ethnic elements would merge into a single whole. But there were also opposite assessments of the development of ethnic and racial relations in the United States at that time. For example, in One America, published in 1945, it was pointed out that the "melting pot" was a myth. America will continue to be a nation of heterogeneous people in the future...". And some modern specialists in ethnic processes believe that the impact of World War II on American attitudes towards ethnicity should be considered in the complex relationship of "pluralism" and "assimilation". "During the war, - they write, - society attached great importance to the education of tolerance among people, the development of an understanding of the essence of ethnic diversity and the discrediting of racism. At the same time, wartime propaganda placed particular emphasis on the ideological unity of Americans and their devotion to their universal democratic values. The difference could be accepted solely because it was based on the assumption that unity lies at the basis of everything.

In general, in American literature since the 20s of the twentieth century. the opinion about the successful development of the American nation according to the "melting pot" formula, "mixing" of representatives of various peoples, despite their ethnic and cultural differences, dominated. Sociologist R. Kennedy made some adjustments to the "melting pot" theory. Having studied marital behavior, namely ethnically mixed marriages in New Haven (Connecticut), she came to the conclusion that religion is the determining factor in marriage: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism. Assimilation took place within a certain system: the British, Germans and Scandinavians mostly married among themselves and rarely went beyond these ethnic communities; the next system consisted of the Irish, Italians and Poles; the third - Jews who entered into marriages only within their ethnic community. Thus, R. Kennedy believed, one should abandon the notion of a single "melting pot" and move on to the formula of a "triple melting pot" that will determine American society in the future. “We should state,” she wrote, “that while rigid endogamy is being lost, religious endogamy is being established and in the future will take place more along a religious line than along a national one, as it was in the past. If this is so, then the traditional single the melting pot must give way to a new concept, which we define as the "triple melting pot. The theory of American assimilation will take its place as a real reflection of what is happening with various national groups in the United States."

The interpretation of R. Kennedy's assimilation processes was supported by the theologian W. Herberg in his work "Protestant - Catholic - Jew", where he also noted that "with the disappearance of ethnic communities, religious groups will become the main communities and identities in America." Subsequently, the ideas of Kennedy and Herberg found their development in R. Lee's book "The Social Sources of Religious Unity".

However, R. Kennedy's data on the number of mixed marriages concluded within the three above-mentioned religions refute her own concept. In 1870, Protestants (British, Germans, Scandinavians) married 99.11% within their system, Catholics (Italians, Irish, Poles) - 93.35%, Jews - 100%, then in 1900 these figures were respectively - 90.86%, 85.78%, 98.82%; in 1930 -78.19%, 82.05%, 97.01%; in 1940 - 79.72%, 83.71%, 94.32%, and in 1950 - 70.34%, 72.64%, 96.01%.

The vulnerability of R. Kennedy's point of view was also pointed out by American researchers, in particular, R. Alba. In an article on the Catholic community, he cited the following data: 40 percent of Catholics born after World War I married Protestants. Now Catholics, wrote Alba, amounting to one-quarter of the total population of the country, three-quarters of them intermarried with representatives of other faiths.

The scientist offered the reader his analysis of the dynamics of the growth in the number of mixed marriages among Italians, Germans, Irish and Poles in the period before the First World War and after the Second World War. So, according to his calculations, the number of marriages concluded outside their group was: among Italians - 21 and 40%, Germans - 41 and 51%, Irish - 18 and 40%, Poles - 20 and 35%. On this basis, R. Alba comes to the conclusion, which is completely opposite to R. Kennedy, that "the increasing number of interreligious marriages among Catholics indicates a decrease in the significance of religious boundaries for the majority of the Catholic group."

A different assessment of the nature and extent of assimilation was given by L. Warner and his colleague L. Sroul in the book "Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups". Taking as a basis the factor of differences in cultural and physical characteristics between immigrants and the host society, the researchers constructed such an assimilation hierarchy, according to which representatives of the Caucasian race with a light type of appearance, primarily people from Northern Europe, have the greatest opportunities for assimilation into American society. They are followed by representatives of the same race, but with a darker skin and hair color - immigrants from Southern Europe, etc. Further - various mixtures of the Caucasian race with other racial groups (for example, Mexican Americans). Representatives of the Mongoloid race have even less opportunity for assimilation, and people belonging to the Negroid race have the least chance.

US melting pot proved efficient in terms of absorption a large number immigrants from different countries, speaking many languages, adhering to different traditions and customs, professing different religions. Its results were especially evident in the spiritual life of individual ethnic groups and the country as a whole. In particular, the number of ethnic organizations has decreased, but there have been significant changes in them, their character has changed. They also underwent assimilation, lost many ethnic features (in many cases, their language and, to a large extent, their original ethnic functions). Ethnic societies, protecting the cultural autonomy of immigrants, at the same time contributed to their rapprochement with the surrounding society.

As noted above, the most significant, if not the most significant, element of the assimilation process is linguistic assimilation. The national languages ​​were increasingly supplanted by English, and their use was decreasing, albeit at different rates in different groups. The importance of printed publications in national languages ​​decreased. If in 1910 there were 70 German magazines in America, then in 1960 there were only 60 of them left. The publication of newspapers in Jewish, Scandinavian and Italian was reduced. The number of Italian magazines decreased from 12 (there were so many at the beginning of the century) to 5 - in 1960. During the same period, the publication of French magazines was reduced from 9 to 1. Less and less immigrants used their native language in such an important institution for them as the church . The transition to English monolingualism was facilitated by the growth of mass media and other factors. Naturally, all this consolidated the US population to a certain extent. For the period 20 - 60 years. In the twentieth century, the trend of assimilation and integration was dominant in the United States. This was stated by the leading American scientist S. Steinberg in the book "Ethnic Myth": "For decades, the dominant trend among ethnic groups and racial minorities was the tendency to integrate into economic, political and cultural life." A significant number of recent immigrants and their descendants, especially those who were in mixed marriages, lost ties with their ethnic group and, during surveys and censuses, found it difficult to determine their ethnic origin by their ancestral people and referred to American origin as such. As T. Sowell wrote, “social attitudes towards race and ethnicity changed significantly, especially after World War II. Mixed marriages among Irish, Germans and Poles exceeded 50%, the same can be said about the Japanese ... Millions of Americans do not can attribute themselves to no gr 7 v 9 ppe, since from generation to generation their mixing took place.

Along with the processes of assimilation and integration in American society in the 60s, there was an increase in ethnic and cultural self-determination of ethnic groups and minorities. According to a number of American scholars, with regard to black and other non-white citizens, they remained outside the "melting pot", occupying the position of "second-class" citizens. "African Americans and Native Americans, (i.e., Indians - Z. Ch.)," F. Burke wrote, "regardless of how they dress, what they eat, what cult they confess, they are denied access to the" melting pot "because of color or history." Civil rights activists began to demand the integration of the black population and other national minorities into American society on the basis of equality in socio-economic and political life. The increased activity of representatives of racial and ethnic groups made it necessary to continue the development of the theory of interethnic relations, since the paradigms established in American theoretical science were called into question. Realities changed, and the "melting pot" was replaced by a new paradigm - "cultural pluralism". As A. Mann noted, theories may come and go, but ethnic diversity remains an important factor in American life. But the objective conditions for the "melting pot" still exist today - this is the entry of immigrants into economic and social life, the settling of new arrivals in cities, the migration of the population within the country and wide interethnic communication. Thus, the problem of the "melting pot" in scientific terms is still relevant today.

The Washington Center for Immigration Research has published another study of the work of a giant social mechanism called the "melting pot", which supposedly turns foreigners who have arrived in the United States into full-fledged and full-fledged Americans.
According to this report, which is based on data from the Census Bureau, Native Americans (native-born Americans) are all who were born in the United States, and immigrants are all legally and illegally residing foreigners in the country and their American-born children under the age of 18. years.
The report found that immigrants now make up more than half of all agricultural workers; 41% of taxi drivers and 48% of cleaners and cleaners, but
at the same time, about a third of programmers and 27% of doctors. Using this data, the authors of the report say that immigrants are adjusting to a new life as they move into it, but they lag far behind Native Americans in areas such as earnings, their own homes and health insurance. 43% of immigrants who have lived in the US for at least 20 years are "sitting on welfare", that is, on the neck of the state, and there are almost twice as many of them as Native Americans, and almost 50% more than new immigrants. Thus, the report concludes, the problem of complete assimilation is more difficult to overcome the barrier of language and culture.
The expression "melting pot" (melting pot) appeared in the United States at the end of the 18th century as a metaphor for the transition of a heterogeneous society into a homogeneous one, that is, the assimilation of ethnic groups that arrived for permanent residence in another ethnic environment. Later it was supplemented by the scientific terms "immigration" and "multiculture", and in everyday life the words "mosaic" and even "salad bowl" (salad bowl). The expression "melting pot" has been firmly established since the beginning of the 20th century, when steamships with immigrants stormed American ports and the British Jew Israel Zangwill wrote and staged a play with that name in New York. It was an immigrant adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy, where Romeo Montague turned into a Jewish immigrant from Tsarist Russia, and Juliet Capulet into a Christian woman named Vera, also an immigrant from Russia. The "melting pot" regularly melted "multicultural" immigration into Americans, whose children became native Yankees, creating America as a state (state) and as a nation (nation). Now this is not the case at all, and "multculti" means the right of ethnic groups to preserve their language, their culture and their traditions, and taxes and the obligation to sit on juries in courts became a tribute to the country that adopted them.
The Center for Immigration Research report is 96 pages long and comes in the midst of an election campaign when both rivals, as far as their political convictions go, are flirting with the multimillion-strong community of illegal immigrants, counting on the votes of their legal compatriots who have already received American citizenship. Basically, we are talking about the possibility of a younger, law-abiding and more or less educated part of illegal immigrants to temporarily legalize. Fundamentally, we are talking about a possible increase in the number of legal immigrants. The author of the report and the head of the center, Stephen Camarota, believes that the pro and contra arguments of this problem are rather not quantitative, but qualitative.
“We know that they are mostly poor people,” Camarota told the Washington Times, “and don't tell them that they are doing well, as many want to hear. There is progress, and individual measures strengthen it, but in general the situation is not at all what we would like, especially for those who are the least educated. They are far behind the natives [Americans] even though they have lived here for twenty years.” Like other experts on the problems of mass immigration, Stephen Camarota does not mean literate painters from Moldova or maids from Namibia, but immigrants from Mexico and Latin America - the backbone of cheap labor in our fields and gardens.
This prospect is not welcomed by most voters, but most of our politicians are in favor of more legal immigration. As a senator, Barack Obama supported bills that would boost the influx of immigrants to hundreds of thousands a month, and as president, he did not change his position. “Our farms need to be legally able to hire workers they can rely on and open the way for such workers to legal status,” Obama said last year in El Paso, Texas, near the Mexican border. “And our laws should respect rule-abiding families and reunite them faster, not tear them apart.” Republican Mitt Romney, Obama's obvious rival in the November election, also called for the legalization of immigrants, although only high-tech students and family members of green card holders. “Our immigration system should help strong families, not divide them,” Romney said in June at a meeting with members of the National Association of Hispanic Elected and Appointed Officials in Florida. “Our country benefits when mothers, fathers and their children live together under the same roof.”
Demographics play a role here, according to the Camarota report: in Massachusetts, for example, the annual income of a Native American family is $89,000, and that of an immigrant family is $66,000. In Virginia, the ratio is $93,000 and $80,000. On the one hand, immigrant families in Virginia pay more income taxes, but, on the other hand, these families receive more welfare. In terms of immigrant backgrounds, the report found that Mexicans make up 57% of beneficiaries of social assistance for poverty, while the British are only 6%, which is not surprising, given the number of both in America. Native Americans account for 23% of this assistance.
Griboedov argued in vain that grief comes from the mind. Today, 25% of US public high school students speak a language other than English at home.
A report from the Stephen Camarota Center noted that immigrants with bachelor's degrees and above who have lived in the United States for 20 years succeed slightly, but more than Native Americans. Immigrants with secondary education live worse than the same native Yankees, regardless of how long they are in the United States.
According to experts, the new wave of immigrants are also assimilated in a new way. Professor George Borges of Harvard University says second-generation Americans - the children of current immigrants - will still be 10% behind Native Americans in terms of living standards by 2030. In their report, Assimilation Tomorrow, California State University demographic professors Dowell Myers and John Pitkin argue that, by 2030, 1990s immigrants will be living happily ever after, with 71% of them becoming American citizens. The recent recession has made it harder for them to “top up,” but it hasn’t derailed the path taken by previous generations of immigrants toward assimilation. However, according to Myers and Pitkin, the legalization of 11 million foreigners who are now illegally in the United States will not help, but only hurt the process of assimilation - the work of America's giant "melting pot". Today, the work of this boiler is no longer displayed by Israel Zangwill's play "Melting Pot" based on Shakespeare's tragedy, but rather the grotesque performance "Russian Transport" based on the play by Erika Schaeffer, which has been playing since the winter of this year on the stage of the Acorn Theater on 42nd Street near Broadway.
The law is harsh, says Roman wisdom, but it is the law. US federal law obliges immigration authorities to deny visas to foreigners who may become potential immigrants but are unable to support themselves and thus increase the army of state aid recipients. Last week, a group of Republican senators sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Immigration Service) and the State Department asking them to clarify why they do not consider whether applicants will receive 80 types of welfare recipients when considering visa applications. The senators have not yet received a response to their letter.

Caudillo is a form of government, a regime of personal power of dictators in a number of Latin American countries, established during a military coup and based directly on military force. Caudillo - a form of government, a regime of personal power of dictators in a number of Latin American countries, established during a military coup and based directly on military force.

In the economies of Latin America, farms focused on agricultural products or minerals. In the economies of Latin America, farms focused on the production and export of agricultural products or minerals abroad.

The 19th century is the time of the folding of the Latin American nation. 60 million people lived in Latin America. 60 million people lived in Latin America. There were 20 independent states. There were 20 independent states. Spanish was spoken in 18 countries, Portuguese in Brazil, and French in Haiti. Spanish was spoken in 18 countries, Portuguese in Brazil, and French in Haiti.

America is a melting pot