Immigration in America was at full force in the early twentieth century, and Zangwill’s play “The Melting Pot” (1908) along with Kallen’s essay (1915), present two different views and perspectives on the matter. These two important pieces support two different theories for American immigration, “the melting pot”, supported and made popular by Zangwill’s play, and cultural pluralism, promoted by Kallen. “The Melting Pot” supports a sense of assimilation and Americanization by European immigrants. Many people mistake the meaning of this term, as it truly represents a plethora of cultures coming into one, as they all lose a sense of their identity and customs and the dominant culture emerges. Kallen’s essay challenges this American way and refutes
…show more content…
His foundation in cultural pluralism is based on the fact that he was a part of the progressive movement, and a secular Jew, and needed a set of beliefs that verified his Jewish identity separately from a religious basis. In his essay, he directly responds to Zangwill, also a secular Jew, and critiques his beliefs. Kallen states when criticizing Americanized and intermarried Jews, “…and more excessively self-consciously American than the Americans. And another Jew, Mr. Isreal Zangwill, of London, profitably promulgates it as a principle and an aspiration, to the admiring approval of American audiences, under the device, ‘the melting pot’” (Democracy versus the Melting Pot, Part III). His disgust is evident as he is saying Zangwill cherishes and spreads this melting pot metaphor, in which Jews lose their cultural identity, to the American public. He goes on to say, “As for Zangwill, at best he is the obverse of Dickens, at worst he is a Jew making a special plea” (Democracy versus the Melting Pot, Part IV). This further proves the immense disagreement between these two secular Jews, and is example of two very separate ways to view one’s own culture, and the dominant culture around
His foundation in cultural pluralism is based on the fact that he was a part of the progressive movement, and a secular Jew, and needed a set of beliefs that verified his Jewish identity separately from a religious basis. In his essay, he directly responds to Zangwill, also a secular Jew, and critiques his beliefs. Kallen states when criticizing Americanized and intermarried Jews, “…and more excessively self-consciously American than the Americans. And another Jew, Mr. Isreal Zangwill, of London, profitably promulgates it as a principle and an aspiration, to the admiring approval of American audiences, under the device, ‘the melting pot’” (Democracy versus the Melting Pot, Part III). His disgust is evident as he is saying Zangwill cherishes and spreads this melting pot metaphor, in which Jews lose their cultural identity, to the American public. He goes on to say, “As for Zangwill, at best he is the obverse of Dickens, at worst he is a Jew making a special plea” (Democracy versus the Melting Pot, Part IV). This further proves the immense disagreement between these two secular Jews, and is example of two very separate ways to view one’s own culture, and the dominant culture around