home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
070891
/
0708101.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
9KB
|
194 lines
<text id=91TT1492>
<title>
July 08, 1991: What Do We Have In Common?
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991
July 08, 1991 Who Are We?
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 19
COVER STORIES
What Do We Have In Common?
</hdr><body>
<p>TIME asked distinguished Americans from a variety of backgrounds
to ponder that question, and also the following: Should the
teaching of history give more emphasis to our unity as a nation
or to our diversity?
</p>
<p> "What the curriculum report tried to do was show how this
concern with cultural diversity has been misinterpreted. We have
viewed it as a matter of helping people to learn more about
themselves and others. The primary reason youngsters need to
study multiple cultures is to learn how to develop multiple
perspectives. This capacity is essential to developing
intelligence. We have, I hope, elevated the question from a
political debate concerning whose history to teach to the
question of how to enable youngsters to use broad, often
conflicting bodies of information to arrive at sound judgments."
</p>
<p>-- EDMUND GORDON, YALE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AND MEMBER
OF THE NEW YORK STATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
</p>
<p> "We have a history of treasuring our sameness, but we
should also respect our diversity. Our histories should allow
all students and teachers to feel like first-class citizens. A
U.S. history that only stresses a westward movement across the
continent would marginalize or exclude Native Americans. It
would make African Americans ask, `Who booked my passage?' It
would make Hispanics say, `We stood still and the border moved
to the other side of us.' And it would make Asian Americans
wonder, `What about eastward movement rather than westward
movement?' "
</p>
<p>-- RENATO ROSALDO, STANFORD UNIVERSITY ANTHROPOLOGY
PROFESSOR
</p>
<p> "It would be just 30 years ago that Nathan Glazer and I
finished Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans,
Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. There were then two
dominant expectations about ethnicity in America. The `liberal
expectancy' suggested a fading of differences into a common
civic culture. The Marxist expectation was that class would
obliterate background distinctions of every kind. Glazer and I
argued that ethnic attachments would grow more, not less,
pronounced. It may help to know that the present tumult was
anticipated. It may also help to know--and teach--how much
the cast of characters changes. A century ago in New York, the
Irish would have felt themselves the most aggrieved group. Such
tensions have long since faded."
</p>
<p>-- DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, U.S. SENATOR
</p>
<p> "The fundamentals of American history need not be
threatened as we expand to cover other important elements, such
as the contributions of African Americans, Asian Americans and
Hispanics. For example, in telling of building the
transcontinental railroad, the contributions of Irish and
Chinese laborers were for many years ignored. The Asian
contributions to early California agriculture are very seldom
mentioned. Some people may fear that more attention on minority
groups may have the effect of dividing people. But in a complex
society, there are many different elements, and we should view
this as a unique opportunity to build strength for the whole."
</p>
<p>-- CHANG-LIN TIEN, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY
</p>
<p> "Unity is the completed puzzle, diversity the pieces of
the puzzle. And until we recognize every piece, we cannot have
true unity. That's the debate that's going on today, or that is
where the debate should be aimed. By acknowledging the
contributions made to our country by Native Americans, and by
Hispanics and blacks and Asians, we're really strengthening our
unity. As we look to the future of America, we have to rewrite
our history so that we acknowledge those contributions and don't
ignore the unpleasant experiences, the cruelties and
aggressions. Manifest destiny, in a positive perspective, means
individuals seeing endless opportunities. But there is also the
negative side of manifest destiny, which is aggression and
achieving goals at the expense of others. That
less-than-glorious background has to be acknowledged and
recognized. Why? Because we can no longer be defined by how the
white Anglo majority wants to see us--as stereotypes."
</p>
<p>-- ANTONIA HERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL,
MEXICAN-AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
</p>
<p> "The reason we don't have the problem that countries like
Yugoslavia are having now is that all groups except African
Americans have come here voluntarily. And all those cultures
deserve to be included in our definition of American. I'm not
talking about cultural cheerleading. We have got to teach
children that all cultures have value. Yes, we have to talk
about the Founding Fathers--but we also have to talk about
women's role, African Americans' role. This was not just white
Anglo-Saxons who fought in the Revolution; it was Americans of
all races, colors and creeds. We're not putting down anybody.
Instead of a spotlight on one group, we want a floodlight on
many cultures."
</p>
<p>-- JOHN PAUL BIANCHI, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR AND MEMBER OF
THE NEW YORK STATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
</p>
<p> "What we have in common as Americans is a political and
social tradition that has created a unique degree of freedom in
action and conscience; a society more open to newcomers than any
so far known. American law and custom have blended diverse
groups more successfully than any other community. Further, we
have in common a system that--for all its serious flaws and
injustices--has shown an unprecedented ability to correct
itself. Certainly we must become more aware of other cultures
and their contributions. But the top priority should be to equip
children for life in the modern world, to preserve and expand
the unity America needs to function better, for the sake of all,
and to avoid the destructive effects of intellectual tribalism."
</p>
<p>-- HENRY GRUNWALD, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF TIME INC.
</p>
<p> "What we have in common, first, is a splendid continent
full of natural resources. Then we have a history of a network
of relations among us. Those have been unpleasant as well as
pleasant, but unhappy memories too can be a source of unity. We
have the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have a future in
common, which means a great deal. And we have denim jeans.
That's a shared loyalty, from the Indians to the yuppies. As for
the teaching of history, you have a choice for your children.
You can tell them the truth about their country's past,
favorable and unfavorable. Or you can indulge a fantasy
belonging to the white male minority."
</p>
<p>-- PATRICIA LIMERICK, HISTORIAN, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT
BOULDER
</p>
<p> "History should not teach a kind of uniform identity or a
commonality of American culture. So much of American history
really does involve struggle and conflict and different groups
trying to come to terms with one another. I think it tells us
that the melting pot has not served the function of melting
people into a kind of common identity so much as the fact that
people still retain their own senses of identity. It's easy for
teachers to look for easily teachable generalizations for
students. But what history tells us more than anything else is
how complex our experiences have been."
</p>
<p>-- CLARA SUE KIDWELL, HISTORIAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY
</p>
<p> "One of the proudest things we have in our tradition is
pluralism. Separation of church and state, which lays the
groundwork for this tolerance of diversity, is a peculiarly
American concept. The battle about what to teach is over.
America has always been a study of different cultures operating
on one continent. You have the French colonial exercise in
Canada, the British colonial exercise here, and the Spanish
colonials in the lower part of the hemisphere. What's happening
now is that things that have been accepted in academic history
are filtering down into the elementary schools and have become
part of a political fight."
</p>
<p>-- GARRY WILLS, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR
</p>
<p> "Teaching that America is a melting pot of all kinds of
cultures takes care of each culture. I'm from the Mississippi
Delta, which God knows is the melting pot of melting pots, but
we thought of ourselves as having the purest American blood.
There were Chinese, Syrians, Italians, Jews from all over doing
their best to appear to be native-born Americans. That's changed
a lot. Now they realize the value of what they've been trying
to shed. It should always be kept in mind that we are a diverse
strand of peoples. But to break it down into what the Hungarians
contributed, what the Russians contributed, the English, Irish
and Germans contributed, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Are
you willing to dilute the pure stream of history in order to
investigate all the creeks that run into it?"
</p>
<p>-- SHELBY FOOTE, CIVIL WAR HISTORIAN
</p>
</body></article>
</text>