The three articles to be considered in the present work are all dedicated to the issues of racial inequality existing in the USA and the multifaceted attitude that can be adopted concerning the problem. The authors of the articles discussed are researchers in different fields since the issue of racial juxtaposition has been discussed for a long period so far, finding no clear solution to the problems emerging nowadays.
In the article “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective” George Fredrickson indicates that there is a problem of racial inequality in the USA not only concerning the white, Caucasian people and such national groups as Latin Americans, Native Americans, and African Americans; he argues that there has emerged the hostility and segregation of certain groups among the Caucasian type of nationality as well:
Throughout its history, the United States has been inhabited by a variety of interacting racial or ethnic groups. In addition to the obvious “color line” structuring relationships between dominant whites and lower-status blacks, Indians, and Asians, there have at times been important social distinctions among those of white or European ancestry (Fredrickson).
The author also summarizes the four models of cultural interrelations existing in the USA: hierarchy, assimilation, pluralism, separatism. The relations of the hierarchy are seen by him in the context of accepting the dominance of one group over another one together with assuming the primary superiority of the former over the latter one. In such a case the privileges and rights are distributed on an unequal basis, justified by some reasons chosen by the dominant group and proving that it is entitled to them more than another one. The second model of relations, one-side assimilation, presupposes a certain type of equality; however, the price for equality is the refusal from authenticity by one group and it’s adopting the profile of the dominant group accepting it under these circumstances (Fredrickson).
The position of cultural pluralism is the most beneficial one for cultural and racial minorities as it emphasizes the positive influence of the cultural multitude and diversity. The project of the 20th century met the resistance of pro-nationalists in America and failed to be implemented (Fredrickson).
The last model, separatism, is directed at minimizing the intervention of different cultural groups. It proved successful in some European countries, however, being unacceptable for the USA for a set of reasons – the arising nationalism within the country makes it undesirable as well (Fredrickson).
Steele takes another point of view on the issue of racial power in her article “I’m Black, You’re White, Who’s Innocent?” – she argues the point that racial power and moral power are closely connected in the sense of the ongoing debates over the purity of the nationality in the USA. Steele is sure that the fight for power is derived from the search for peace and the wish to resolve the issue with the help of public power:
Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his initiative (Steele).
The author is sure that the hostility that has been intensified by the official juxtaposition and long-lasting racial suppression is the negative energy that cannot generate any positive, constructive outcome – the moral power is the alternative that recognizes no distinctions and can unite people. She sees the racial problems as the enemy for the efficient solution of the problem and calls the moral power of rivals the weapon against the hostility (Steele). Thus, the author makes the strong emphasis on the personal participation of every person involved in the problem for the sake of its solution – Steele is sure that the clue is in the individual perception; people should not wait for some authority to find the solution, they have to apply their morality and seek the answer themselves.
The article of Ruben Martinez is written in another flow – the author tries to prove that people who treat the Mexican culture with despise go for it and get absorbed by it with pleasure if an occasion arouses:
Once we’re safely on the other side, the melodic strings of Mexico take over. The swaggering American will have his way with a Mexican senorita. The post-colonial representations of borderlands literature–produced by Mexicans and Americans alike–have yet to soften the edges of this Spring Break syndrome (Martinez).
The author is a son of immigrants as well; he is at the crossing of cultures, and in his article, he tries to show the impact of differences of cultures produced on his identity. The way he perceives himself is deeply affected by the attitude of Americans to his nation, to Mexican immigrants, which is very unfair at times (Martinez).
Summing all information given in all three articles, it is possible to admit that all three authors address the same problem – the attitude to immigrants in the USA under the condition of enhanced nationalism from the side of its residents. The issues of racial discrimination and segregation are discussed in a detached, analytical way by Fredrickson; Steele offers a moral, ethical solution to the problem while Martinez turns the reader’s attention to the impact the hostility produces on the suppressed people.
Works Cited
Fredrickson, George M. “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective”. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. 7th ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, Bedford/St. Martins, 2007, pp. 561-574.
Martinez, Rubin. “The Crossing”. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. 7th ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, Bedford/St. Martins, 2007, pp. 574-584.
Steele, Shelby. “I’m Black, You’re White, Who’s Innocent?” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. 7th ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, Bedford/St. Martins, 2007, pp. 530-541.