Tag Archives: culture

“They” – a 1971 perspective on othering

As a sophomore at Willowbrook High School in 1971, I penned a short piece entitled “They” for the holiday edition of the school’s newspaper, The Skyline. It is republished below with 3 minor copyedits (!). There is a lot I’d word differently if I were to write this today – after lots more education and life experience. Such as it is, however, the article reflects an emerging awareness about formation of attitudes (and prejudices) towards groups different than our own, and about what we call today, othering. And sadly, its theme is still relevant almost a half-century later.

It is “they!” Are “they” coming? No, they’re here. Are “they” invading us? How could they, we created them. Then who are “they”?

Most every day, each one of us, to differing degrees uses a stereotype or generalizes about some group(s) of people. “They” are the objects of generalization and often degrading stereotypes. “They” can be those of any group, as seen by someone from the outside. “They” are nobody in particular, but everybody in general.

Generalization is lumping all people of one group in one category (“all blacks are lazy,” “people over 30 are untrustworthy,” etc.) without regard to the fact that sub-groups and more importantly, individuals within each group are different.

A stereotype is an image tagged on to a group. For example, the typical stereotype of a Mexican is a man taking a siesta sitting against a wall, with a big sombrero pulled over his face. Like generalization, stereotypes are unfair, because they put one label on each individual of a group.

Generalization and stereotypes usually are caused by lack of understanding about others. In turn, they promote more misunderstanding among people. But, an even worse problem is that unfound[ed] prejudice or hatred also give rise to stereotypes and generalization. Whatever their cause, it is incumbent on us to strive to eliminate these two promoters of misunderstanding in order to keep alive the hope of “Peace on Earth, Good Will Towards Men.”

“They,” by Don Osborn, The Willowbrook Skyline, 16 Dec 1971, p. 2

Remembrance

A quick note of remembrance for my journalism teacher at the time, and the longtime advisor for the Skyline, John M. Rowley, who passed away in 2012. RIP.

Mr. Rowley, as we knew him, was patient, generous with advice while not imposing his solutions, and had a good sense of humor (which more or less he had to). His lessons about concise headline writing I particularly remember, as they turned out to be transferable many years later to writing 140 character tweets!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Assimilation – in the 21st century?

What does “assimilation” (in its socio-cultural sense) really mean in an age of globalization, easy digital communication, international integration, migration, and recently in the wake of recrudescent nationalisms?

Source: “The Forced Assimilation of Native Americans,” Gwich’in Steering Committee

On a vary basic level, we know that assimilation refers to a process by which individuals of a more or less distinct group (perhaps indigenous, immigrant, or formerly enslaved) are integrated or subsumed – willingly or by force – into the identity of a larger society or dominant culture. As such it has long been a goal of many plural states, and also of many immigrant groups settling in different countries.

Beyond that, the meaning of the term seems to be assumed without much clarity as to what the implications are.

Many questions

The initial question gives rise to others. For example, what are the issues/differences of assimilation as national policy, as socio-cultural process, and as personal or community aspiration? Are there different kinds or degrees of assimilation at each level?

Does assimilation necessarily require sacrifice of identities? Who decides whether or not that is the case, and what is sacrificed?

Is some kind of assimilation necessary for full participation in a society? Is equal status conditioned on type/degree of assimilation? If so, at what point – if ever – might it confer status and rights equivalent to those of the rest of society?

Considering the racist and nativist streaks in at least some nationalisms, do their definitions of assimilation exclude some peoples a priori? What is the relationship between assimilationism and racism (recognizing that there have been different treatments of various racial, ethnic, and religious minorities)?

Example of racist imagery associated with assimilationism. Source: “Chinese Immigration in the Late 19th Century: Discrimination in Action – Assimilation,” LEADR, MSU.edu

What is the burden shouldered by willingly assimilating? Or the cost imposed on individuals, communities, and cultures by assimilationist policies?

What are the benefits and costs of assimilation to the society as a whole?

What do other related terms like “acculturation” and “integration” (in its socio-cultural sense) mean in this context, and how are they different? Such terms would seem essential for fuller understanding of, and clearer discussion about “assimilation.”

Assimilation 2.0?

These questions in turn bring up other issues, such as:

Does it make any sense to talk of assimilation as we advance into the 21st century? If so, how and in what ways? If not, is there another term/concept that is more appropriate and productive for the changing realities that peoples and nations are living today?

Are we now defining an “Assimilation 2.0”? Or perhaps more fortuitously, new ways of thinking about how diverse peoples come to live together in peace, and with mutual respect and amity?

______________

The text of this post is adapted from the description of an email list with the same title that I ran in the mid 2000s.Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail