Revista de Derecho. Año XXI (Diciembre 2022), Nº 42, pp.
297-309 | ISSN: 1510-5172 (papel) - 2301-1610 (en línea) - https://doi.org/10.47274/DERUM/42.12
Este es un artículo de acceso abierto
distribuido bajo los términos de una licencia de uso y distribución CC BY-NC
4.0. Para ver una copia de esta licencia visite http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
MONOGRAFÍA DE ESTUDIANTES
Mary Beth APKER
Estudiante de tercer año de abogacía en la University
of Minnesota (Estados Unidos)
ORCID
ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6798-4479
Recibido 03/11/2022 - Aceptado: 17/11/2022
Para citar este artículo / To
reference this article / Para citar este artigo
Apker, Mary Beth (2022). The
United States as a melting pot of cultures: universality of human rights. Revista de Derecho, 21
(42), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.47274/DERUM/42.12
The United States as a melting pot
of cultures: universality of human rights
Abstract: The
universality of human rights means ensuring equal human rights to each
individual regardless of any differences (race, sex, gender, religion, etc.).
The United States has struggled with actively supporting the universality of
human rights since its inception. The U.S. is a country built by immigrants and
continues to be a destination for opportunity. However, balancing the different
cultures from Asia to Europe to Africa has proved to be an increasingly
difficult task for the U.S. The country has moved from one extreme
(assimilation) to another (cultural relativity) while trying to be a true
“melting pot” of cultures. This essay analyzes the costs and benefits of each
of these solutions through a historical lens while also examining less extreme
options for ensuring the universality of human rights such as promoting
differences and ensuring equality.
Keywords: assimilation,
cultural relativity, melting pot, human rights, universality, culture
Estados Unidos como crisol de
culturas: la universalidad de los derechos humanos
Resumen: La universalidad de los derechos humanos implica garantizar la igualdad
de derechos humanos a cada individuo, independientemente de las diferencias
(raza, sexo, género, religión, etc.). Estados Unidos es un país construido por
inmigrantes y sigue siendo un destino de oportunidades, y desde su creación, ha
luchado por defender activamente la universalidad de los derechos humanos. Sin
embargo, equilibrar las diferentes culturas provenientes de Asia, Europa y
África ha resultado ser una tarea cada vez más difícil. El país ha pasado de un
extremo (asimilacionismo) a otro (relativismo
cultural) mientras intentaba ser un verdadero "crisol" de culturas.
Este ensayo analiza los costos y beneficios de cada una de estas soluciones a
través de una perspectiva histórica, a la vez que examina opciones menos
extremas para garantizar la universalidad de los derechos humanos, como
promover las diferencias y garantizar la igualdad.
Palabras clave: asimilación, relatividad cultural, crisol de culturas, derechos
humanos, universalidad, cultura
Os Estados Unidos como um caldeirão cultural: a universalidade dos direitos
humanos
Resumo: Universalidade dos direitos
humanos significa garantir direitos humanos iguais a todos os indivíduos, independentemente das diferenças
(raça, sexo, gênero, religião, etc.). Os Estados Unidos são
um país construído por imigrantes e continua sendo um destino de oportunidades, e desde sua
criação, tem lutado para
defender ativamente a universalidade
dos direitos humanos. Entretanto, o equilíbrio das diferentes culturas da Ásia,
Europa e África provou ser uma
tarefa cada vez mais difícil. O país passou de um extremo (assimilação) para outro
(relativismo cultural) enquanto tentava
ser um verdadeiro "caldeirão de culturas". Este ensaio
analisa os custos e benefícios de cada uma dessas soluções através de uma perspectiva
histórica, enquanto examina opções
menos extremas para garantir a universalidade dos direitos humanos, como a promoção
das diferenças e a garantia
da igualdade.
Palavras-chave: assimilação, relatividade
cultural, caldeirão cultural, direitos
humanos, universalidade, cultura
1. Introduction
The United States has been referred
to as a “melting pot” of cultures for decades. This saying refers to all the
different cultures forming one new culture, the American culture. However,
there are hundreds of different cultures that each have their own traditions
and norms that go into creating the American culture. When each of these
cultures encounters a new culture it creates friction on which norms are
“right” or which should be valued more. The universality of human rights helps
to ease the friction by reminding everyone that each person deserves equal
human rights simply through the virtue of being human. However, this often comes
into conflict when two cultures intersect and have different values on a single
topic. Through this essay, the universality of human rights in the United
States will be dissected through two extremes: assimilation and cultural
relativity. Then after examining the issues with the extremes, this essay will
examine better ways to incorporate the universality of human rights in the
United States and what has already been done, and what could still be done.
2. The Universality of Human Rights
The universality of human rights is
the idea that humans have equal rights just by being human beings. This means
that every single person has the same innate human rights from Croatia to China
and to the United States regardless of status or characteristics. (Universality, 2022). However, when
cultures interact there are stark differences in what each culture values, so
how can there be universal values and rights? For example, the United States
still allows the death penalty in 27 states and is legal federally as well.
(States and Capital Punishment, n.d.). However, Denmark and Portugal have
abolished the death penalty for all crimes. (Center, 2022). This is a simple
illustration of how different countries and cultures value vastly different
things, which creates the problems that come with the universality of human
rights. These countries might judge the other for being too harsh or too
lenient on crimes. America is a combination of hundreds if not thousands of
different cultures that have immigrated to America over the centuries.
Countries and cultures have fought to have dominant cultures throughout the
years through colonization, wars, and international organizations. Even within
a single country, there are different cultures and perspectives. The first way
to try and organize these differences is through the extreme manner of
assimilation or eradicating the differences of newcomers in a country.
2.1 Assimilation
Assimilation
has a long history in the United States that reaches back centuries. The United
States is a country of immigrants that started in large waves during the
Industrial Revolution (1850-1915) with European immigrants. “Assimilation is
the process by which the characteristics of members of immigrant groups and
host societies come to resemble one another.” (Brown, 2021). This process has
implications for immigrants’ economic, cultural and social aspects.
Assimilation occurs over multiple generations with most anthropologists finding
that the third and fourth generations of immigrants are fully assimilated into
the new culture.
In
the U.S. when 30 million Europeans immigrated due to the open border policy,
there were many concerns by native-born Americans that immigrants would not
assimilate. One thought was that these immigrants would take lower-paying jobs
and slowly work their way up to the same pay and job parity as native-born
Americans. (Brown, 2021). However, these Europeans largely started at the same
rate as Americans depending on their origin country. Immigrants from richer
countries such as England and Germany could move up faster than natives while
immigrants from poorer countries such as Italy and Russia moved at a much
slower pace. The U.S. even implemented laws in favor of western Europeans
compared to southern and eastern Europeans by allowing more western Europeans
to immigrate when they started limiting the number of immigrants. (What History
Tells Us About Assimilation of Immigrants, 2017).
While
there are numbers to track following job growth, it is much harder to track
changes in the way an immigrant dresses, eats and acts in social contexts over
different generations, which are key insights into an immigrant’s assimilation
process. A simple way to measure a form of assimilation is by measuring
language skills in the native language. However, learning the native language
is not total assimilation, but just a way to get jobs and have a successful
life in a new country, especially the United States. Researchers have found
ways to measure assimilation through the names given to immigrant and native
babies. The longer an immigrant is in the country before having a child the
more likely it is to have a more native-sounding name. However, many retain
some form of their cultural identity within their child’s name while also
making it more American.
Children
with more native names were shown to complete more schooling and have a higher
income than those with foreign names. The native names also were less likely to
marry a foreigner than those with foreign names. The research suggests that
while giving a child a foreign name retains cultural identity more easily, it
opens up the child to more racial discrimination. (What History Tells Us About
Assimilation of Immigrants, 2017). This is a form of racialization, which is
the process of defining people as certain races and then on that basis being
subjected to different and unfair treatment. (Racialization, n.d.).
Racialization through names occurs when people associate certain names with
races. A person with a more American-sounding name will be discriminated
against less simply because people will assume they are American, even if they
are not. This is especially important for assimilation because immigrants who
are seen as white in the United States are more likely to assimilate quicker
than those deemed as “other”.
It
is also important to understand there are different forms of assimilation in
the United States. These forms of assimilation can be broken down into three
distinct topics. First, there is Anglo conformity which is when the immigrants
are taught that the U.S. culture is superior and they should adopt those norms
as their own in order to be accepted. (Formulated as A+B+C=A). Second, there is
the melting pot theory which is that the immigrant’s culture and the host
country’s culture blend and merge into a new culture that incorporates aspects
of each. (Formulated as A+B+C=D). This is what people would typically expect
from American culture. Finally, there is the salad bowl theory which states
that the racial/ethnic minority retains their own cultural norms and identity
while also sharing norms, basic identities, and culture with the host country.
(Formulated as A+B+C=A+B+C). So while the United States may be famous for being
a “melting pot” it is much more likely to be an Anglo-conforming society when
it comes to assimilation. (Assimilation & Ethnic Identity :
Asian-Nation :: Asian American History, Demographics, & Issues, n.d.). The
United States pushes immigrants to conform and adapt to their new environment
instead of embracing new cultures and ideas.
This
is an issue because instead of supporting and creating spaces for new cultures
and identities, the U.S. culture swallows differences and nuances in order to
create conformity. This has led to high racial tension within the culture that
culminates in discrimination, hate crimes, and legislation that purposefully or
inadvertently harms racial and ethnic minorities. Assimilation takes away core
parts of people’s familial and cultural identity in order to become more like
the majority. This reduces tolerance of other cultures and creates patriotism
that borders on superiority over pride in one’s country.
Assimilation
also has negative impacts on the immigrant themselves. Often throughout
generations, languages change and the newest generation doesn’t learn their
parent’s native language or is unable to speak or write it. These create
cultural boundaries within people’s own families and can lead to mental health
issues such as depression, isolation, and a lack of cultural identity. (Misra, 2015).
Not
only does the United States expect immigrants to assimilate, but it also
expects them to assimilate without any help from the U.S. government. Learning
English is extremely important to new immigrants and 95% of immigrants say that
it is the biggest barrier. However, the U.S. does not do nearly enough to help
new immigrants learn the language. It does not provide resources to new
immigrants to learn the language, but it also does not even provide signs in
different languages throughout the country. Almost every sign and advertisement
are solely in English which offers no help to new immigrants who may have had
zero experience with the language before moving to America. English as a second
language programs have declined while the number of immigrant children in
public schools has risen, leading to inadequacies in helping these children
reach their true potential. (Misra, 2015).
Assimilation
also leads to higher crime rates for immigrants. When immigrants first move to
the U.S. they often live in neighborhoods further away from white, native-born
residents. These neighborhoods tend to have much lower crime rates than those
of mostly native-born citizens. However, as assimilation occurs, newer
generations reach the same crime rate as native-born citizens. (Misra, 2015).
Assimilation
has clear negative and positive impacts on immigrants and native-born citizens.
Assimilation though fails to support new cultures and instead expects them to
throw away their cultural differences in order to become more “American”. This
lack of regard for different cultures is not how a country achieves human
rights for each of its citizens. Cultural relativity is another extreme
response to the universality of human rights that must be examined. Instead of
eliminating differences, cultural relativity seeks to understand and accept all
differences as long as the host culture accepts them as a norm. This leads to a
number of different problems that infringe upon human rights as well.
2.2 Cultural Relativity
Cultural relativism is the practice
of regarding one culture from the viewpoint of itself and not from the
perspective of another. This philosophy suggests that no single culture is
better than any other culture. It also states that there is no absolute
standard of good and evil in society. There are two types of cultural
relativism: critical and absolute. The absolute method suggests that everything
that occurs in a culture should not be questioned by outsiders. The critical
method though looks into who is accepting the norms and why and examines the
power structures within a culture. (Nickerson, 2021).
For example, in Afghanistan since
August 15, 2021, the Taliban have taken over Kabul and have control of the
government. The Taliban is a theocracy that follows the practice of killing
people who do not agree with their beliefs. These beliefs include devote
religious practices, men must have beards and can marry multiple women, and
women cannot receive an education or show most of their body outside of the
home. (Amnesty International, n.d.). The absolute method would say that these
practices cannot be judged from the western perspective. (Nickerson, 2021). The
critical method however would look into the power structures and the conflict
between the Taliban and non-Taliban Afghans still without imposing western
values into the equation. (Nickerson, 2021). These two methods of cultural
relativism would come to drastically different conclusions most likely.
(Amnesty International, n.d.). However, the international community (mostly as
a united front) has declared many of the Taliban’s tactics to be a violation of
international law and standards. Cultural relativism does not value even a
general consensus of countries around a certain norm and would not take
international consensus into consideration for its evaluation.
This
is very different from ethnocentrism which is applying one’s one culture when
evaluating another culture. (Nickerson, 2021). For example, it is commonplace
in some countries to eat insects as a food source, and they are sold in large
quantities by street vendors. That behavior is nearly non-existent in the
United States. Therefore, an American may say that eating insects is
disgusting, while it is actually a cheap way for many people to get many
nutrients throughout the day. Cultural relativism removes the person from their
own culture in order to evaluate another culture’s norms and traditions.
Cultural relativism in the United
States could have many impacts if it was taken seriously. It would lead to the
conclusion that no one country’s belief system is superior to another.
Following that premise and the earlier example of the Taliban, the United
States would not have believed it necessary to start wars in the Middle East in
order to instill a government that the United States is comfortable with. If
Americans believed in cultural relativism, they would evaluate the practices in
Afghanistan, not from their own viewpoint, and try to understand the government
of Afghanistan from their own practices. However, the United States was and
still is more likely to employ ethnocentrism in situations such as this one.
(Amnesty International, n.d.).
On
the other hand, cultural relativism can also lead to beliefs that most people
would conclude are wrong. For example, in the 1940s during World War II, most
people would consider the genocide of the Jewish people to be morally wrong and
unfathomable. However, under cultural relativity, one could not judge from
their cultural perspective. One must look into if it was an accepted norm in
Germany at the time and if it was then the practice would be deemed
respectable. This would lead to the conclusion that this act was not morally
wrong, which is an irrational conclusion and therefore cultural relativity
cannot be applied to all acts or used as the only way to apply the universality
of human rights. (Rachels, 1999).
Another issue with cultural
relativity is that it stops people from being able to criticize their own
culture as well. The test is simply to ask if the action conforms to the norms
of society. In the United States, an example of this in the past is slavery.
Until the 1860’s slavery was legal and encouraged in many southern states as a
way to increase one’s power and prowess. If someone at the time was trying to
figure out if this practice was wrong and they looked to see if society
accepted the behavior it would seem to be that it is okay. However, most people
would find this appalling. Therefore, cultural relativity is not the answer in
many scenarios to how to approach the universality of human rights. (Rachels,
1999).
Cultural relativity and assimilation
are not the only two options when evaluating how a country can create equal
human rights for each of its citizens. These are two extreme options that come
with clear problems that are difficult to solve if those were the only options.
Between erasing the differences between cultures through assimilation and
accepting every action of a different culture, there lies a middle ground. Two
other options, promoting differences and ensuring equality, provide a way for
countries to balance the majority culture with new cultures arriving through
immigrants. These two options allow immigrants to participate fully in a new
culture while also retaining their traditions and norms that tie them to their
family and original culture. Each of these though also comes with problems that
the U.S. must recognize in order to fully guarantee equal human rights to
immigrants.
2.3 Promoting the Differences
While
assimilation and cultural relativity each have their own unique problems, there
are less extreme answers to how to incorporate human rights into different
cultures. Assimilation encourages everyone to be the same at the expense of the
“other” culture, while cultural relativity basically states there is no issue
with any culture if it is a widely accepted norm within that culture. One way
of meeting in the middle is to simply promote the differences within the
American system that each culture provides.
In the United States, there is a
separation of church and state. It is also constitutionally protected that each
person may practice their own religion as their religion dictates. One way the
U.S. has promoted the differences is by allowing people to follow their faith.
One example is that Jehovah’s Witnesses can practice their beliefs even in
life-or-death situations. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in blood
transfusions. Therefore, they are allowed to deny themselves a blood
transfusion even if it is the only thing that would save their lives. Doctors
must respect this decision even if it means losing a patient, regardless of how
the doctor feels about the patient’s choice. (Caine, 2014). If a Jehovah’s
Witness accepts a blood transfusion they may be ostracized or expelled from
their community which could have devastating mental health complications if it
was not their choice to receive these transfusions. (Caine, 2014). This
dramatic show of promoting differences conveys the importance of promoting the
differences in people’s beliefs and culture. Not only can someone refuse
life-saving treatment, but also they are empowered to do so within the American
culture.
A less extreme example is historically
black colleges or universities (HBCUs). HBCUs are colleges or universities that
are predominantly black, though anyone is allowed to apply and attend. These
schools were developed out of necessity due to decades of black students being
unable to apply to traditionally white schools even after the abolition of
slavery and segregation. These schools are dedicated to teaching about African
culture, and prominent black members of society and offer a space for black
Americans to not feel prejudiced, while also simply providing the college
experience and schooling to its students. (Buchkova,
2021)
These
schools not only provide a quality education that many Americans would not be
able to find elsewhere, but they also accelerate black mobility in the economy.
These schools account for 17% of all degrees of black Americans and have an
estimated $10 billion increase in the salaries of black workers. (How HBCUs Can
Accelerate Black Economic Mobility, 2022). Currently, in the U.S. 80% of black
judges and 50% of black lawyers attended HBCUs, which shows the power these
schools have in giving black students the tools to be successful. HBCUs have
been attended by Oprah Winfrey, director Spike Lee, and most notably Vice
President Kamala Harris. (Buchkova, 2021). These
schools promote the differences between African and American cultures while
successfully setting up graduates in the workplace. HBCUs are one of the most
successful examples of promoting differences in the United States.
Finally, Chinatowns within the
United States are another example of promoting differences. Similar to HBCUs,
the beginning of Chinatowns are based on racism and xenophobia towards Chinese
immigrants. The first Chinatown developed in California during the gold rush,
and originally Chinese immigrants were tolerated. However, as immigration
increased and the job market competition increased as well. Not only did hate
crimes such as lynching start to occur, but also the U.S. made it illegal for
more Chinese to enter the U.S., which was its first law restricting
immigration. While racism and hate for the Chinese grew, Chinatowns became a
sanctuary for many Chinese as they were less likely to be attacked there. These
towns became a hub for newly immigrated Chinese individuals and families and
provided a social group that understood their struggles intuitively.
(Yarlagadda, 2022).
Chinatowns have since become a
cultural marker within many of America’s largest cities. There are currently
around 50 Chinatowns within the U.S., each a different size and varies slightly
in culture. However, reverse white flight (whites returning from suburban areas
back to urban areas) risks gentrification of these neighborhoods. (Yarlagadda,
2022). These neighborhoods not only provide close cultural connections for new
immigrants, but they also share their culture with non-Chinese Americans
through food, clothes, and entertainment not found in other neighborhoods in
U.S. cities. The U.S. must continue to protect these neighborhoods from
gentrification and rising housing prices in order to protect the culture that
is housed within in neighborhood. A loss of any of these neighborhoods would
negatively impact not only Chinese Americans but also the community at large in
each area. Chinatowns provide an example of promoting differences in a healthy
way that allows cultures to co-exist together in a peaceful and meaningful way.
Promoting the differences between
cultures promotes awareness of different cultures and their norms. This
normalization of different traditions creates more comfort with the average
American and increases the chances of each person feeling an attachment to that
other culture. The more Americans that feel comfortable with Jehovah’s
Witnesses, black excellence, and Chinese culture the more likely each community
is going to be respected and treated equally within the law and community. Promoting
the differences loudly and in a way that benefits not only the group at hand
but the community at large is one way in which human rights can be respected
throughout the nation. However, promoting the differences between different
communities is not the only way that the U.S. can create a universality of
human rights.
2.4 Ensure Equality
Ensuring equality is yet another way
to find a balance in universalizing human rights. Ensuring equality can come in
many different forms, but it ensures that foreign-born and native-born citizens
have the same rights and opportunities. One way this has played out extensively
in the United States is through higher education in colleges and universities.
Affirmative action is a practice of many universities in admitting students of
“diverse backgrounds” (usually students of color) into colleges and
universities. Throughout the years it had been held unconstitutional to set
aside specific seats for these students or to give them a significant advantage
over white students. The Supreme Court has battled since the 80s with different
admissions schemes, getting into the most minute details in
order to differentiate from its prior rulings. (History of Affirmative
Action - American Association for Access Equity and Diversity - AAAED, n.d.).
The Supreme Court is still fighting the battle with affirmative action in 2022
and until it has a clear set of rules it will continue to have to deal with
similar problems. While the goal of affirmative action was to provide a road
without discrimination for minorities, it has been more effective in stoking
more discrimination against these minorities. Many white Americans feel that
minorities are given special treatment with affirmative action instead of being
provided with equal treatment (admission without discrimination).
This has led to the American public
having heated debates about whether or not affirmative action is fair. The only
people who have sued in these cases are white students who were not admitted to
the institutions that applied these tactics. This leads to many issues about
whether people of color are given unfair advantages in admissions. (History of
Affirmative Action - American Association for Access Equity and Diversity -
AAAED, n.d.). The main goal of affirmative action though is to make up for
decades of excluding these students. It is trying to ensure that people are not
being discriminated against for their ethnicity or race or socioeconomic
background, which is a goal of ensuring quality. While it remains controversial,
it is an example of how colleges and universities are trying to ensure equal
treatment of different cultures.
On the other hand, the United States
has failed many times in ensuring equality. One of the most egregious examples
of this is the Japanese internment camps during World War II. After the attack of Pearl Harbor in 1941, The United States government
established internment camps (concentration camps) that housed large numbers of
Japanese Americans in under 48 hours after the attack. The camps were meant to
protect the West Coast. However, Pearl Harbor is in Hawaii and many of these
people could not read or speak Japanese and had no family still in Japan to
even connect with if they wanted. (Magazine, 2017). These people were forced
from their homes and forced to remain under military watch for months. There
was no proof that many of these people had any connection to the attack on
Pearl Harbor or had any connection with the war itself. Many Japanese Americans
were also barred from enlisting in the war even if they wanted. There was also
no relocation of German or Italian citizens, each country being America’s other
enemies during WWII. The exclusion of Japanese citizens after Pearl Harbor was
not only due to the Pearl Harbor attacks but also because it was easier to see
them as other, instead of Europeans who fit in with the white Americans.
(Magazine, 2017).
In
one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions (Korematsu), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
internment camps stating that the military had the best insight into this
situation and that the Supreme Court should not impede. (Trickey,
2017) This case is now taught as an example of the Supreme Court making wildly
inappropriate decisions but has yet to be officially overturned. But it is a
clear case of how the United States has worked directly against universality in
human rights and has prioritized white Americans over Asian Americans,
African-Americans, and Latino Americans. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan and his
administration tried to right the wrongs of the past and issued reparations for
the families of the prisoners held in internment camps in WWII. (Trickey, 2017). This shows that the United States is
working towards ensuring equality, but has continued to make egregious mistakes
along the way.
Finally, ensuring equality as
extends to environmental justice. Environmental justice is seeking
environmental equality for people regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, or background. In the U.S. there is a long history of environmental
racism, which is an environmental injustice that disproportionately impacts
people of color. For example, there is a town in Lousiana,
that is nicknamed “Cancer Alley”. This is because the residents in this town
are 50% more likely to develop cancer than the average American, and the
majority of its population is black. It is an 85-mile stretch that is covered
in oil refineries and petrochemical plants that recklessly dispose of their
waste, which causes a severe impact on the town’s residents. (Colarossi, 2020). The people who live here simply cannot
afford to move to a safer area, and the U.S. government should work towards
ensuring environmental equality for people in areas such as this one. This
would be one of the most positive ways that the U.S. government could ensure
equality. By promulgating stricter environmental regulations on large factories
and oil refineries, it could provide a safer environment for its own citizens.
While there are numerous examples of
environmental racism impacting black communities, there are even more egregious
examples of it occurring to Native Americans. This is perhaps even more
disrespectful because the pollution occurs on sacred lands of different Native
American tribes. (Arvin, 2021). One major battle in Minnesota over the last few
years has been the fight over Line 3, a new pipeline that would expand a
current pipeline an extra 350 miles that have a high risk of oil spills. These
oil spills, if they were to occur, would mostly impact indigenous lands
throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. These are sacred lands that feed, water,
and provide shelter to many different Native American tribes. The suggested
impact of the extended oil pipeline is roughly equivalent to bringing 50 new coal
plants into the area. (Arvin, 2021). This is another example of where the
United States could improve its dedication to the universality of human rights.
Each person has the right to the enjoyment of life, and these lands are sacred
to a culture that the United States has a long history of disrespecting. If the
United States were to better respect other cultures and ensure equality and
promote differences within the many cultures within its borders, it could
provide better environmental justice to minority groups such as these Native
American tribes.
The United States has a long way to
go before it can honestly say it has created equality for each of its citizens.
The examples above show the constant back and forth that progress requires.
Ensuring equality can come in many different forms and there are many examples
that could not be listed, however, it is clear there is no perfect solution for
any one problem. While promoting differences and ensuring equality work much
better than assimilation or cultural relativity the U.S. has not yet found the
solution to merging the number of cultures it currently boasts within its
borders.
3. Conclusion
Overall, the United States is not a
melting pot of cultures but is still focused on assimilation and trying to fit
everyone into a singular mold of a culture that has not evolved in many years.
The problems with assimilation such as mental health issues, dissolution of
family culture between generations, and a feeling of being other will continue
until the United States can better handle the universality of human rights. On
the other hand, cultural relativity would be a drastic overcorrection that
would also cause issues. Cultural relativity would allow human rights
violations if taken too far and would not help cultures grow together. The
solution to providing human rights to all of its citizens is not a simple one.
There are many steps that need to be taken in a number of different areas of
law and public policy. However, simply understanding, recognizing, and naming the
issues is the first big step the United States should take to remedy the issues
it has caused with assimilation. Promoting differences and ensuring equality
are just two middle-ground options that the U.S. can employ in creating equal
human rights for each of its citizens. The universality of human rights creates
unique problems when applied to cultures co-mingling in a single society and
not one country has perfected it yet. But there are many ways to improve the
cohesiveness of a country without erasing cultural differences.
Bibliographical references
Amnesty
International. (n.d.). Afghanistan
Archives. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/afghanistan/report-a
ghanistan/
Assimilation & Ethnic Identity : Asian-Nation :: Asian American History,
Demographics, &
Issues.
http://www.asian-nation.org/assimilation.shtml#sthash.uWZfayRl.dpbs. Accessed
6
Oct. 2022.
Brown, B. K.
F. S. D. (2021, September 21). Assimilation
Models, Old and New: Explaining a
Long-Term Process.
migrationpolicy.org. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/assimilation-models-old-and-new-explaining-lo
Arvin, J.
(2021, March 25). The battle over the
Line 3 oil pipeline expansion in Minnesota,
explained: How Native
Americans are leading t. . .. Vox.
Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.vox.com/22333724/oil-pipeline-expansion-protest-minnesota-biden-climate
change
Buchkova, M.
(2021, February 26). In Pursuit of Black
Excellence — The Legacy of HBCUs in
America. America
House Kyiv. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.americahousekyiv.org/ah-blog/2021/2/24/in-pursuit-of-black-excellence-the
Caine, N. (2014, May). The Challenges of Treating Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Medical Protection.
Retrieved
October 6, 2022, from
https://www.medicalprotection.org/southafrica/casebook/casebook-may-2014/the-challe
ges-of-treating-jehovah%27s-witnesses
Center, D. P. I. (2022, May
31). Countries That Have Abolished the
Death Penalty Since 1976.
Death
Penalty Information Center. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
Colarossi, N.
(2020, August 13). 10 egregious examples
of environmental racism in the US.
Insider.
Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.insider.com/environmental-racism-examples-united-states-2020-8
History
of Affirmative Action - American Association for Access Equity and Diversity -
AAAED.
(n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2022,
from
https://www.aaaed.org/aaaed/History_of_Affirmative_Action.asp
How
HBCUs can accelerate Black economic mobility. (2022,
August 1). McKinsey & Company.
Retrieved
October 6, 2022, from
Magazine, S. (2017, January
5). The Injustice of Japanese-American
Internment Camps
Resonates Strongly to This Day.
Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/injustice-japanese-americans-internment-cam
s-resonates-strongly-180961422/
Misra, T.
(2015, September 30). For Immigrants,
“The Melting Pot” Is A Mixed Bag.
Bloomberg.
Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-30/a-new-report-finds-that-assimilat
on-has-mixed-outcomes-for-u-s-immigrants
Nickerson, C. (2021,
February). Cultural Relativism |
Definition & Examples - Simply
Psychology. SimplyPsychology. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cultural-relativism.html
Racialization.
(n.d.). Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre. Retrieved October 6, 2022,
from
https://www.aclrc.com/racialization
Rachels, J. (1999). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.
Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Rachels--Cultural%20Relativism.htm
States
and Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2022,
from
https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/death-penalty.aspx
The
Challenge of Cultural Relativism.
https://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Rachels--Cultural%20Relativism.htm.
Accessed 6 Oct.
2022.
Trickey, E.
(2017, January 30). Fred Korematsu Fought
Against Japanese Internment in the
Supreme Court. . . and Lost.
Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fred-korematsu-fought-against-japanese-inter
ment-supreme-court-and-lost-180961967/
Universality
and diversity. OHCHR. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2022, from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-cultural-rights/universality-and-diversity
What
history tells us about assimilation of immigrants. (2017,
April 12). Stanford Institute for
Economic
Policy Research (SIEPR). Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants
Yarlagadda, T. (2022,
September 14). The Rise, Fall and Future
of Chinatowns in the U.S.
HowStuffWorks.
Retrieved October 7, 2022, from
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/cultural-traditions/chinatowns.htm
El autor
es responsable intelectual
de la totalidad (100 %) de la investigación
que fundamenta este estudio.
Editor responsable
Miguel Casanova: mjcasanova@um.edu.uy