Does Ethnic Diversity Portend the Disuniting of America?
Whether or not “The First Universal Nation” of Ben Wattenberg (Buchanan 466) fixes its meaning? Despite it is in law, not all people have the same point-of -view about it in practice. George M. Fredrickson’s “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective” and Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Deconstructing America” essays are typical exemplars. Fredrickson and Buchanan are famous politicians. “Race in US” is one of popular topics of Fredrickson who used to serve as the “president of the Organization for American Historians and Stanford University” (Fredrickson 449). Buchanan is “one of the most influential and outspoken conservative voices in the US… and has campaigned for the presidency himself three times” (Buchanan 462). Therefore, the ideas that Fredrickson and Buchanan have written in their essays are valuable for us to read and know the pros and cons of a multicultural model. This paper will first show Group Separatism – one of four models in Fredrickson’s essay that Buchanan seems to endorse; then continue with the explanation as to why Buchanan rejects Cultural Pluralism – another model of ethnic relations; and finally will be a personal reflection on Buchanan’s ideal vision of America. About Group Separatism in “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” Fredrickson says, “group separatism emanates from ethnocentric concerns about the status and destiny of particular groups” (457). This idea is endorsed by Buchanan through his desire to the destiny of nation and the unchanged legal position, as he states, “the Americans were all ‘us-or-them’ people. They believed in the superiority of their Christian faith and English culture and civilization…This was [their] land, not anybody else’s” (Buchanan 466). Nevertheless, Fredrickson’s opinion on Group Separatism is “a symptom of racial injustice” (459). Therefore, Cultural Pluralism is the best choice of Fredrickson...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document