The Disuniting of America - Reflections on a Multicultural Society by Arthur Schlesinger - Book Report/Review Example

 Arthur Schlesinger book “The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society” discussed America’s desire to have unified American race while balancing the diversity of races of which its society is composed. He is anxious, however, that the recent revision of the curricula of New York state history that included ethnocentric history, specifically the emphasis on Afro-centric curricula would undermine the historical canons that made what America is leading to the loss of common values that bind us as a nation. Schlesinger put forth the thesis that the emphasis on ethnic awareness, especially among public school, is a mistake; that instead of students studying the history that will unite America, they would be studying the history of his or her ethnic origin that is not even a historical fact. According to him, “the purpose of history is to promote not group self-esteem, but understanding of the world and the past, dispassionate analysis, judgment, and perspective, respect for divergent cultures and traditions, and unflinching protection for those unifying ideas of tolerance, democracy, and human rights that make free historical inquiry possible” (Schlesinger 104). In pushing for his thesis, Schlesinger argued that it is really not beneficial for Afro-Americans to study the history of an ethnic group or country which they have no cultural ties. He used the example of W.E.B. Du Bois to illustrate the detachment of the present generation of Afro-Americans to Africa as saying that “neither my father nor my father’s father ever saw Africa, or knew its meaning or cared overmuch for it” (Schlesinger 88). Even quoting the great Afro-American civil rights activist Martin Luther King as “we know nothing of Africa” (Schlesinger 89). In Schlesinger assertion, this can even lead to a distorted sense of history and cultural crisis as students would tend to study the essays written by the likes of Afrocentric writers such as Asa Hilliard and John Henrik Clarke, whose assertion that Africa is the “mother of Western civilization” has no historical basis, that is grounded more on fiction than documented fact. While it is agreeable that it is very important to study the history and the traditional canon of one’s country of birth (America), the tragedies that molded it, or the nuances of its cultural orientation, the assertion of Schlesinger that extending the historical study to other ethnic roots could distort one’s cultural image or sense of history is rather simplistic. It underestimated the capacity of the students to synthesize and recognize the difference between historical fact and fiction. Schlesinger’s concept of history is also narrow as he merely confines historical fact to what is written and contained in the “traditional literary canon” and failed to consider that before written history, histories are also passed on via oral tradition. He may have cited the importance of diversity of cultural ethnicity, but his partiality towards a one-sided monolithic history which is usually written by the powers that be is obvious. He may have stressed the importance of a “free historical inquiry”, but the method he proposed disallows looking at history at another perspective for a student to arrive at a more accurate sense of history through the synthesis of varying sources. His approach towards studying history discourages debate whose very process makes every participant grow. What Schlesinger implies in his thesis of a single American identity is blind acceptance of the dominant history, excluding the minorities from the debate of what really an American identity is. Schlesinger concept that America as a race meant the imperative cultural immersion and assimilation of those races that chose to immigrate in America that will make its new set of people is simplistic and problematic. True, America was considered as the New World before where people of different ethnicity flocked in either to explore better opportunities or to escape religious persecution, as in the case of the Puritans who migrated in New England between 16th and 17th century. But he failed to recognize that the Africans who were brought in the country did not choose to migrate here but were rather brought in as slaves. This negates his assumption that those who chose to immigrate in America should assimilate because the Africans who were brought in did not chose to be here. Most of them were sold here to work either in the plantations or gold mines of Chesapeake or to work as a bondage laborer somewhere else. In addition, Schlesinger’s assertion manifests his insensitivity and intolerance towards minorities, particularly the black people, by citing panic with the inclusion of African study in the school curricula. He failed to recognize, being somebody who came from a privilege class, that it is only recent which African Americans can truly assert and know more about themselves. Until the 1970s, African Americans were discriminated and were even harshly admonished when they spoke about themselves during the early history of America. Schlesinger may have focused his anxiety on the problem of including multiculturalism in the academe, but his vexation extends to the implication of such study to society in a broader way. Perhaps, the reason of his criticism on the inclusion of African studies in the school curricula as a mistake is because he knew that this expansionary shift of study about ethnicity in school has a long-term effect in society and its future. As a historian, Schlesinger knew that society’s perspective and people’s sense of self are molded in the academe. If he is to promote a monocultural America and discourage ethnic awareness, he has to start in the academe because society’s perspective about culture and itself will later follow. Whether real or not, Schlesinger is worried that the implication of multicultural study in the academe will affect society’s cultural identity, which could lead into national disintegration. Schlesinger has an inadequate grasp on the true cultural spirit of America. His advocacy in his book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society for a single national identity, to the exclusion of others that would bind us all is characteristically un-American. He inadequately considered and understood multiculturalism, he perceived it to be a threat against American identity when, in fact, it is America’s real strength. America became the greatest country in the world today because of the natural wealth of talent it can draw upon to build itself. This multiculturalism which, naturally, breeds diverse perspectives resulted in America’s ingenuity to create something that placed it ahead with the rest of the countries of world. Personally, I believe that if America had assumed the monolithic model of culture which Schlesinger advocated in his book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society, America will not be the kind of America that it is today, great and strong. We would have been like other countries with single cultural identity, but less progressive. With regard to Schlesinger worry about cultural crisis leading to national disintegration, it would be naïve, just as what Schlesinger had assume, that we would know ourselves less as American nor abandon our love for this country to which we are born just because we want to study our roots or other culture. Also, America as a society is inclusive. It was founded on the acceptance of those who came in here, whether by choice or by bondage. Assimilation was not forced but naturally came into being out of affection to the country that made us. Schlesinger assertion of merely subscribing to one cultural literary canon alienates others, which is the real threat to American culture that could bring not only national disintegration but also ethnic hostility. Work Cited Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Print. Read More