Many of us from the American public school system were taught that we are a “melting pot” culture: one that welcomes and is shaped by diversity, a tapestry of experiences that promises a safe haven to those wishing to start anew. We were told that this version of the “melting pot” was a core value of this country, and institutions like UTD, claim they are inheritors of this very legacy. Yet the history of the term “melting pot” reveals that this a misconception that lets us trick ourselves into believing the push for assimilation and resulting xenophobia are new phenomena, instead of vices as old as America itself.
The term “melting pot” was first popularized by Israel Zangwill’s 1908 play “The Melting Pot.” It explored themes of cultural assimilation from the perspective of Jewish American immigrants. The “melting pot” was how a culture, made up of many different ethnicities, could be homogenized. Like how metalworkers will “smelt” gold to rid it of impurities, as people vie to join the fabric of a nation, they must first go through the melting pot to rid themselves of impurities. Here, they shed their ethnic identities and become Americanized. This was a vision touted by many prominent Americans, which can be found in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s private journals and the work of Frederick Jackson Turner, the historian credited with the “frontier thesis” of American history, a claim that became integral to Americans’ conception of our own history. In an 1893 essay, Turner argued that the frontier was the “crucible” where American identity was forged: life on the frontier forced immigrants to shed their old culture and fully invest in the new. Throughout his career, Turner would expand on this by arguing that American culture was a collection of “sections” underpinned by a common inheritance, law, language and spirit.
Even without that exact metaphor, the perception that the goal of immigration is assimilation is deeply rooted in American culture. Around the 1890s, the idea of “hyphenated Americans” emerged to critique of immigrants who held onto their ethnic heritage by speaking a language other than English or identifying with a “hyphen” — like calling oneself “Italian-American” or “Polish-American.” It insinuated that those with divided identities had divided loyalties. In 1922, when speaking to a crowd of Irish Catholic immigrants, former President Theodore Roosevelt said, “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.” He went on to clarify that he was not targeting “naturalized Americans,” but believed that if a man could not bring himself to discard his hyphen, he could never be a good American. To Roosevelt, “the only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.” This was later referenced by President Woodrow Wilson, who said, “Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic.” There was even a political cartoon published in Puck, a political magazine, claiming it was unfair that “hyphenates” with divided identities could cast a full vote, a shocking extension of the poisonously Anglocentric definition of who counts as American.
This perspective on immigration alienates anyone who doesn’t fit an Anglo-Saxon mold, erases their contributions and minimizes the struggles they faced. America has always been built on the backs of those it marginalizes, all while deriding them for being different. Slave labor built the White House and the Capitol, and yet their “masters” were paid for the work. Irish immigrants worked in coal mines, factories and docks, yet they faced religious discrimination and were crowded into cellars, attics and tenements. Chinese immigrants laid the Central Pacific Railroad under hazardous conditions, yet they were targeted by “Yellow Peril” fearmongering. To this day, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more immigrants are actively working or looking for work than their native-born counterparts, filling essential roles in numerous industries. And yet, workers who lack citizenship status are regularly victims of systematic wage theft, hazardous workplace conditions and politicized xenophobia as they get blamed for everything wrong with the nation they helped build.
We have been told that American culture is a melting pot that welcomes immigrants and integrates their experiences. In reality, the “melting pot” shares the same rotten core as the fear of the “hyphenated American.” It is the idea that if an immigrant wishes to be accepted, they must shed their heritage, hop into the pot, and melt into gold for the nation. We are told on the news that immigrants are dangerous, disruptive or too much for the country’s institutions to handle the same messaging we have seen for centuries about immigrants that refuse to melt down. If we have residents who won’t hop in the fire but still call themselves Americans, what does that mean for American culture? Immigrants who don’t speak English, who don’t dress in Western clothing, who live in an ethnic community or who hold onto their own traditions are “divisive” and can’t be true Americans; they pose a threat to the ideals of the nation. Those are the people who get targeted, harassed and vilified while everyone else looks the other way, because the only immigrants facing those problems are the ones who cannot or will not be the “right kind” of immigrant.
It is a ridiculous set of assertions, especially on a campus home to as much cultural diversity as UTD, but it is one we nevertheless fall victim to every time we let assimilationist rhetoric slide. Immigration policy is on the ballot for this November election, and your choices speak to your vision of what America stands for. Donald Trump has stated his intention to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” referencing an Eisenhower-era mass deportation named “Operation Wetback” after a slur for Mexican immigrants. Trump’s plans include reviving his first-term Muslim bans, refusing asylum based on the claim that migrants carry infectious disease, and invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which would allow him to conduct rapid deportations without holding due process hearings. As politicians spew blatant xenophobia and fascist groups put up stickers on campus, the window of everyday acceptability shifts. Anti-immigrant talking points have leached into the mainstream, becoming more and more socially acceptable, including false claims that immigrants place stress on federal services, drive up housing costs or are prone to violence. Since Trump’s first term, the political environment around the topic of immigration has only become harsher, and the potential consequences are terrifying for all immigrants — documented or otherwise.
If we buy into the American myth of diversity as a “melting pot,” we start to look away when the people who don’t fit into the image of a ”true American” get targeted. We cannot let that slide, and we need to stop patting ourselves on the back for acceptance we don’t actually practice. That means voting in the upcoming election if you can, emailing your representatives and continuing to engage with student-led efforts to celebrate our multicultural identity. Most importantly, don’t shy away from having conversations about how Americans treat the topic of immigration. Pay attention to the language used and the messages spread and speak up when you hear something worrying.
Our vision of America is based on the wrong metaphor. We are not a melting pot and we should not strive to be. When we rid ourselves of this foundational lie, we can finally challenge the rhetoric it covers up.