Verhovayak Lapja, 1940. január-június (23. évfolyam, 1-26. szám)
1940-01-25 / 4. szám
Page 6 was foreign-born or of immigrant parentage. Chicago was 64% “foreign”; Philadelphia 50%; Cleveland 65%; Boston, of all places, 71%; Detroit, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and St. Paul 57% each; etc. Most of the large cities north of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the Mississippi are over 50% “foreign” socalled; which is true also of many small communities. English, of course, continues to be the prevalent tongue of the country, and there is no least desire anywhere to have it supplanted; but we do have over 1,1000 newspapers and magazines published in about 40 foreign languages, and about 1,000 radio programs daily in other languages than English, and hundreds of parochial and “national” schools in which a great number of American-born children are taught more than a score of foreign languages. These facts and estimates, I think, are charged with dynamic possibilities, good and bad, but I believe mostly good if we are careful and intelligent. Involved in these facts is much of the future of the U. S. Each of the new-immigrant groups has a number of successful, prominent or famous individuals. There are over 2,500 immigrants in Who’s Who in America—scientists, artists, musicians, educators, etc. The great majority, however, are humble folk, workers and farmers who skate on the thin ice along the margins of our erratic economy. Some are or were on relief, though not nearly as many as generally imagined... There is no doubt, though, that most of them are economically better off here than they would have been in the old countries. They generally realize this and are glad to be here; their devotion to this countiy, in many cases personally known to me, is almost beyond adequate statement. But while this is generally true, many, perhaps most, are not quite at ease, not quite at home, spiritually or culturally. They are more or less different from the old-stock Americans, and are regarded as different, and they feel prejudice in various forms directed against them from various sides, from the dominant group, because they are different. Of late years, the Depression has had a hand in this. In many places the foreign-born and those of their American-born children whose names had a so-called foreign sound were laid off first, before the old-stock workers, sometimes even before the Negroes. This caused a vague, often unconscious sense of panic among immigrants and their families, and the tendency became for various groups to stay together and hold onto their foreign sections, which in the better times had begun to show signs of disintegration... In recent years, too, there has been a powerful backwash of group feelings or national emotions from the drastic events in Europe; some of it natural and inevitable, and some of it purposefully stimulated by agents of Old World governments. At the risk of oversimplification, this backwash and the Depression have been effective in increasing prejudice and intolerance, and in driving—more or less—the various elements back upon their own resources as groups. Anti-Semitism has increased; we all know that—with the result that the tendency among the Jews in many parts of the country is to suppress their talents and ambitions, and to draw more or less apart from the main streams of American life ... To a lesser extent, in milder forms, the same is true of many other new groups. My impression is that, in this game of prejudice, the most consequential are the attitudes of the old-stock people because they are the dominant group and whatever they do is more important, it seems, than what is done by the newer people... Such words as “alien” and “foreigner” are flung about all too carelessly, with all too much derision. Many people, when they say “alien”, mean not only the alien, but also the naturalized immigrant; and often not only him, but also his American-born son or daughter if his or her name happens to sound “foreign”. This sort of things seems to be spreading. It is noticeable in the halls of Congress. It creeps into the speeches of professional patriots. It is being taken up by Americans who are not old-stock but of the more favored, earlier new-immigrant groups. As I sáy, the old-stock Americans’ prejudice is the most serious in its effect; but, in fairness, I hasten to add that, by and large, the old-stock people—the real old-stock, who are hooked to the best traditions of America— are rather less apt to be prejudiced than some of the hew groups, which—as a hangover from the Old World nationalism—maintain, here and there, active unfriendliness toward one another. Together, old-stock and new-stock elements manage to produce a stream of prejudice that runs through our cultural atmosphere and touches most phases of the country’s life; and in turn, produces, much inner chaos, which plays havoc with individual character, which makes people insecure and puts them on the defensive, which inhibits and kills ambition and talent and the inclination to participate in things. In fairness, again, let me say that amidst all the snobberies and related attitudes there is also much friendliness, or would-be friendliness, on the part of the old-stock and new Americans, one toward the other. On a rough estimate, I should say, from what I am able to discern from my current study, that 60 or even 70 per cent of old-stock Americans incline to be friendly on the whole, although much of that friendliness, unhappily, is spoiled in part by the tendency to be condescending and patronizing. And, also on a rough estimate, I should say that about half of the people in the newer groups are not actively prejudiced... I might say, too, that much of the prejudice is a superficial business, not personal, just sort of general, unfortunate and stupid. I am not blaming, nor excusing anyone here: the villains in this game of prejudice are also its victims. I find, for instance, that prejudice, essentially, is worse on the prejudiced than on their targets; it turns the former into objectionable people, robbing them of humanity and spiritual health. My point is that we have entirely too much prejudice, that it is growing, and that that is bad for America. The cleavages among the various groups are deepening; groups are pulling apart, into various corners, away from one another. This is true of the old-stock element as well as the new group ... I know personally, or I correspond with, hundreds of old-stock people, particularly in the East, but also elsewhere, who may be representative of millions, and who are uneasy because their cities, as they say, are full of “these foreigners”; and who feel the country is going to the dogs, in part, because of that. A feeling is creeping on them that this is no longer their country, no longer America, Anglo- Saxon America; and they confess they are beginning' to feel like aliens here. So they are withdrawing; their attitudes are getting rigid ... and they hold onto their money if they have any, and they blame “these foreigners” if they haven’t any. They are becoming unhooked from the country’s expansive and creative impulses, from the American Dream; and are being drawn into the fear—and confusion— made trends to contract, to narrow down, to grow anemic, neurotic, and reactionary. ____Verhovayak Lapja_____ January 25, 1940. And this, by and large, is true, too, of the new groups. As I say, they are withdrawing into themselves, into ethnocentric sections, into national or group pride and egoism. This is true of immigrants and, increasingly, also of their American-born sons and daughters.... There are, of course; numerous exceptions; generally, however, the new groups (especially those of the east- and south-European and Near Eastern backgrounds, and of the German background just now) have no firm sense of what psychiatrists call belongingness, which is considered necessary for a full, balanced development of character and personality, and for one’s effectiveness in a creative way within a culture. To repeat, this is true of immigrants and of their American-born children; of many, perhaps most, of them; and remember their number runs into tens of millions... They are different from the old-stock Americans. Their Old World heritage, in most cases, is not England, but Poland or Italy or Armenia or the Balkans, etc. And the beginaiing of their vital American background as groups is not the glorified Mayflower, but the as yet unglorified immigrant streerage; not Plymouth Rock or Jamestown, but Castle Garden or Ellis Island or Angel Island or the International Bridge or the Mexican or Canadian border; not the wilderness of New England, but the social-economic jungle of the city slums and the factory system; not the Revolution of 1776, but the Industrial Revolution; not the peals of the Liberty Bell, but the first glimpse of; the Statue of Liberty. The majority of the new Americans are not subjectively identified with America as a state, a culture, and an idea, although most of them want to be, even desperately so; but the stream of prejudice that runs through our national atmosphere makes it hard for them to achieve that identification. I find that most of the new people, when they say “we”, don't mean “we Americans” or “we the people ini this town”, but “we who live in this section and are of Polish or Armenian, etc., origin or background”. When they say “Americans”,, they don’t mean themselves. The majority are on the defensive, are i oppressed by feelings of inferiority, tens of millions of them; and, in consequence, they j hang back and tend to be what Mencken used to call “assistant Americans” and to suppress | their ambitions and keep away from the main streams of American life. They are “marginal” people, and are geared not to the expansive and creative impulses of America, but to the fear— and confusion—prompted trends to contract and narrow down. What is the answer? A great many people say tolerance. But I don’t know about that. Tolerance, I am afraid, is not enough. By and large, I suppose, I prefer tolerance to intolerance, and I am aware of Webster’s definition of tolerance; but all too often, as I study this problem, I find that tolerance is something very different from what a good many people think it is. Usually, tolerance, as it works out in practice is nothing less than | inactive intolerance; at best a negative virtue, i One is tolerant when one endures, or stands for, something one doesn’t like. Tolerance is i mostly intolerance grown subtle, polite, and beyond reach, where you can’t deal with it. It is mostly veneer for intolerance, which cracks easily; which has been cracking in recent years in this country under the impact I of the Depression and the backwash of the ; events abroad. Something more is needed; we will have to try to begin to accept one another. “This is not a nation but a teeming nation of nations”, a country in process of becoming a nation; it always has been that, and, to my mind, it will be no tragedy should it1
