If a debate were to take place between Schlesinge author of The Disuniting of Am

Question

If a debate were to take place between Schlesinge author of The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society and scholars who study cultural diversity in the U.S.on issues that Schlesinger raises, such as “history as a weapon, “ “history as therapy,” and “the American creed,” how would you outline each respective position (for the cultural diversity scholars, pick one topic)? Whose position do you find most persuasive? Explain.The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society

Explanation / Answer

In a courageous, important, forcefully argued essay, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Schlesinger contends that America as melting pot has given way to an ``eruption of ethnicity'' that threatens to replace assimilation with fragmentation, and integration with separatism. As a case in point, he critiques Afrocentric curricula in schools and colleges which, in his view, glorify a mythic past and make such highly dubious claims as the notion that black Africa is the birthplace of science, philosophy, religion and technology, and the trendy but totally unsubstantiated theory that ancient Egypt was essentially a black African country. Those who attempt to use the schools for ``social and psychological therapy'' to promote minority self-esteem are doomed to failure, asserts Schlesinger, because ``feel-good history'' is factually flawed and does not equip students to grapple with their lives. Schools should certainly teach about other cultures and continents, he stresses, while faulting multiculturalists who forget that Europe is the unique source of liberating ideas of individual autonomy, political democracy and cultural freedom to which most of the world today aspires.

To Schlesinger's claim that "America increasingly sees itself as preservative of old identities," Reed might insist that it has never stopped. Such writers as Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and Reed are almost always referred to in mainstream magazines and on network television as black authors, as though their work needs some special dispensation. Where is the attack on this cult of ethnicity? Clearly, some Americans do not have the option to refuse identification with an ethnic group. Just ask 60% of the white voters in Louisiana if they would like to preserve old identities.

Suffering from the symptoms of this peculiar race-blindness, Schlesinger apparently believes that he can speak for all Americans and fails to realize the presumption of such an act. In claiming that American values "work for us; and for that reason, we live and die by them," he overlooks the fact that the economic and social values of America are failing millions. Of course, many white leaders will blame this problem on the mere presence of blacks in the work force, as Jesse Helms and others have done in their attacks on affirmative action. This argument appeals to whites who are exploited by the same economic system but are, as yet, unwilling to address the growing problem of disparate economic class in America. Despite the anti-affirmative action smoke screen, the fact is that a disproportionate number of African-Americans are suffering. Since the early 1970s, blacks have experienced a persistent erosion of per capita and family income, black men have seen drops in annual earnings and relative employment, and the college-going chances of black high school graduates have declined.

As most of white America continues to ignore this problem, is it surprising that many African-Americans are uniting in a concerted effort to draw attention to it? Could the current backlash against "minority" groups, the growing economic disparity between rich and poor, the dismantling of affirmative action and civil right laws have something to do with the increasing ethnic awareness?

It is hard to fathom Schlesinger's crisis mentality given the relative powerlessness of the ethnic groups that he seems to fear. Daphne Patai suggests that this kind of response to marginalized voices is due to a phenomenon she calls surplus visibility. When people who have been traditionally silent suddenly speak up, our sense of their presence is exaggerated. "When 'one of them' is visible, 'all of them' are seen to be taking over."

Schlesinger offers no real evidence that the brittle bonds of fractious society are straining at the hands of ethnic groups. Certainly the almost unanimously approval, by whites and blacks, of the destruction of Iraq demonstrates a strong, if dubious, unity. The Republican domination of the presidency for nineteen of the past twenty-three years hardly indicates a seriously divided society. The fact that Schlesinger and his friend, Diane Ravitch, long-standing Democrats both, find themselves as spokespeople for the Republican party seems to indicate a decrease in the diversity of ideas rather than the reverse.

Perhaps the real crisis lies in the paucity of voices to challenge the assumptions and the so-called objectivity of a nearly monolithic public mind. In an age of conflation when history, ideology, and the desires of corporate America are hard to separate.

Schlesinger's failure to offer any constructive advice about negotiating difference is, in the end, the most disappointing aspect of The Disuniting of America. He does not seek dialogue. As he says, "white guilt can be pushed too far." Having reached his level of tolerance, he offers a polemic. He is not interested in negotiating difference in a search for pragmatic truths. As a result, he implicitly denies the democratic ideals which he would uphold.

When he suggests that there is a counter-revolution against the original theory of America as "one people," he is right in a limited way. However, this counter-revolution does not seek to disunite America, rather the opposite. In their efforts to undermine the original notion of the United States as a nation governed by and for a certain class of white men, multicultural scholars, feminists, and others are trying to heal the wounds that truly disunite America. In comparison, Schlesinger's "just say no to ethnicity" campaign is less than useful in the difficult task of balancing our simultaneous need for a common bond and the thriving diversity necessary for the continuing growth of our nation.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.