integration of diverse cultural and ethnic groups. The article on the Garifuna, 50 percent of whom (100,000 people) have emigrated to the United States in recent decades, suggests that many Garifuna regard assimilation as a threat to their distinct cultural identity. Assimilation is narrowly defined in the article as
"integrating their [Garifuna] children into crime-ridden inner-city neighborhoods where disaffected subcultures --gangs, drug users and street punks--block the path to mainstream success" (A1).
The first point is that the Garifuna are correct in fearing the consequences of assimilation. Many small groups which have emigrated to America have lost their distinctive identity. In some cases, such as the Shakers, who refused to propagate, their disappearance was caused by their own practices. In most cases, the choice faced by the minority was to assimilate or to perish.
Where cultural differences were too great, as between Native Americans and white settlers, most Native Americans either did perish or were relegated to the margin, reservations. Prior to 1850 most immigrants were Northern American Protestants of various nationalities who could fairly easily develop a common culture, despite initial differences. Each successive generation of immigrants has found it more difficult to assimilate. Why?
Some groups such as Irish Catholics, Catholics from Italy and other parts of Southern and Eastern Europe who came in greater numbers in the second half of the 19th century underwent significant discrimination and segregation in the large cities, but they eventually assimilated. It was relatively easy for them to do so because of widespread economic opportunity and the availability of public education. There also clearly was a mainstream, a dominant set of cultural norms and values to which they could aspire and which had been established by earlier immigrants. The melting pot was never factually as much assimilation to ...