Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nationalism, Forced Assimilation, and France’s Burqa Ban

In 2004, France banned the wearing of overt religious symbols in public schools, including the burqa and nib, two headscarves worn by some Muslim women. Originally, this was done on the pretext that, because France was a secular society, religious symbols in public school and institutions offended this secularism. This 2004 law pales in comparison to France’s 2011 law forbidding women from wearing a face veil in any public setting—a law that much of the Muslim community of France sees as “forced assimilation”.

Over the past five years, the legal banning of the burqa and nib (the full veil worn by some Muslim women) has been growing in popularity throughout many parts of Europe and Canada. France, however, was the first country to enact such a law, implemented in April of 2011. Brought in under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, it was argued that its main goal was to bar anyone from being able to hide their identity in public. Secondly, it was said that it would help promote freedom and respect for women. Finally, the law was supposed to help everyone to integrate, which many see as the most problematic aspect of the law and reminiscent of “forced assimilation”.

Forced assimilation is a process of the pressure to religious or ethnic minority groups to culturally assimilate into an established and generally larger community. Unlike ethnic cleansing, the population is not forced to leave a certain area. Rather, the population becomes assimilated by force.

States often perceive the presence of ethnic or linguistic minorities as a danger to their own nationalism, the concept that a “people” share a common bond through race, religion, language, and culture. The latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century saw a rise of this kind of nationalism. Much of European history during this time can be seen as efforts to realign with this concept of “one people, one nation”.

Forced assimilation ensures that Muslims are not able to practice their faith in the open, and as a result, are not a visible threat to French nationalism and the European way of life. The policymakers in France demonstrate the attempt to forcibly assimilate them into Western society. It does not allow for religious or cultural diversity, as this diversity threatens the norms. Failure to assimilate comes at a great cost. Such Muslims are encouraged to disappear from public life. For example, approximately seventy percent of the prison population in France is Muslim, despite only accounting for ten percent of the entire population.

Ultimately, this ban on burqas can absolutely be seen as a form of forced assimilation— While white populations in the West enjoy the rights protected by the Convention, laws such as France’s burqa-ban imply that Muslims are backward and must forcibly be changed, or face the consequences. This attitude is reflected in the court, where the rights of a Muslim woman are seen as subordinate to protecting the nationalism and homogenicity of a country.

Cowger, Thomas W. “Dr. Thomas A. Bland, critic of forced assimilation.”American Indian Culture and Research Journal 16.4 (1992): 77-97.

Chrisafis, Angelique. “France’s burqa ban: Women are’effectively under house arrest.’.” The Guardian 19.11 (2011).

Nanwani, Shaira. “The Burqa Ban: An Unreasonable Limitation on Religious Freedom or a Justifiable Restriction?’,(2011).” Emory International Law Review 25: 1431.

Reyhner, Jon. “Cultural Survival vs. Forced Assimilation. The renewed war on diversity.” Cultural Survival Quarterly 25.2 (2001): 22-25.

Spohn, Ulrike. “Sisters in disagreement: The dispute among French feminists about the “Burqa Ban” and the causes of their disunity.” Journal of Human Rights 12.2 (2013): 145-164.

 

Standard

The Origin of the Melting Pot Theory

At the beginning of the twentieth century, steamships poured into American ports, filled with the largest number of immigrants in history. While this “Great Wave of Immigration” began in 1880, it exploded during the first decade of the century. More growth was seen from 1900 to 1910 than any previous decade in American history. The majority of these immigrants were coming from non-English speaking countries: Southern and Eastern Europe, especially Poland, Italy, and Russia. Whether they were escaping racial, religious, or political persecution, or seeking relief from famine or lack of economic opportunity, they all shared the same aspiration: to make a better life for themselves and their families. These European countries, however, were drastically different than the United States in terms of culture and language, which led to a difficulty in adjusting to life that many of these immigrants experienced.

At the same time, Israel Zangwill, an English playwright, introduced a play entitled “The Melting Pot”. Although the use of the idea of “melting” as a metaphor for assimilation had been explored before, Zangwill related it directly to the American society. The idea of the melting pot holds the promise that each immigrant, regardless of race and background, can be transformed into an American. Although the story line of the play has long since been forgotten, its main theme has been consistently discussed since its introduction over a century ago, and has become central to America’s national identity.

One of the lines of the play states “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming! […] German and Frenchman, Irishman, and Englishman, Jews and Russians…” In other words, America was transforming the “races” of Europe into one white American race, as there was no mention of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, or Chinese Americans. This, of course, has to do with the time period in which the play was written, when more than 75 percent of all immigrants entering the United States were emigrating from European countries. Nevertheless, America’s theory of the Melting Pot calls for assimilation and the concept of assimilation is inherently racist and oppressive for a plethora of reasons.

In the Melting Pot Theory, immigrants come to America, bringing with them their rich cultural history that they melt into the ever-evolving homogenous broth. Some groups— particularly minorities— have been largely excluded from this melting process. While they are expected to shed the undesirable and unfamiliar aspects of their culture, the flavor of the pot has been and always will be distinctly white. Rather than an equal blending of cultures, assimilation in the United States is largely one-sided, as immigrants and minority groups are expected to give up their traditions and conform to the preexisting Anglo-American culture. Consequently, they gradually lose their cultural identity, melting the parts of themselves central to their sense of self, becoming part of the broth, and thus becoming indistinguishably American. In practice, assimilation leads to a loss of a sense of identity for people of less dominant cultures, as they lose their original language and culture, a process that can be both demoralizing and dehumanizing.

Ultimately, in theory, the melting pot would include learning about other cultures for mutual enrichment. In practice, however, the melting pot requires minorities to melt the undesirable aspects of their culture, yet still excludes these parts in the overall soup; all you can taste is the culture of the dominant group.

Works Cited
“America’s Racial and Ethnic Divides.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.
“Biggest Population Boom Ever.” Numbers USA. N.p., n.d. Web.
“Immigration & Migration: Social Theories.” Immigration & Migration: Social Theories. Regents Prep U.S. History, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.
Library of Congress. “Immigrants in the Progressive Era.” Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2016.
“One Nation, Indivisible: Is It History?” Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.
Standard

This I Believe (Rough Draft)

Often, there is a stigma attached to doing things alone—going to a movie or eating a meal by oneself, for example, can evoke confusion or pity from those around. And far too often, people blur the line between being alone and being lonely, solitude and loneliness.

To me, solitude is serendipitous. There is a sense of freedom that comes along with being alone. Some of my favorite nights have been spent driving around aimlessly in my car, up and down windy roads for hours on end. I have learned to appreciate solitude, even revel in it. There was never one groundbreaking moment that led me to value the power of spending time alone– rather, it happened over time. Growing up, I slowly realized that I was not surrounding myself with the right people and they were beginning to define me. I felt like I didn’t know myself without them, and I certainly did not like myself with them, so I slowly started to do more things alone. It started with doing small things alone, such as walking to class alone, until I felt comfortable enough to do bigger things such as seeing a movie alone or traveling. Those two experiences alone have had an immense impact on who I am. The more time I spend alone, the more I know myself.

Ultimately, having people in your life whom you cherish is one of the most important things in life. I have a group of friends who mean the world to me and bring me up every day– but without spending time alone, I would not know myself without them. Time alone gives me the ability to be creative, be productive, and more than anything it heightens my sense of self awareness. Some days solitude is sweet, other days it’s serendipitous– but when it’s painful, it isn’t solitude.

Standard