A

Americanization and the Pillar of

Democracy

LEWIS ROCKOW, MILWAUKEE, WIS.

MERICANISM with its motto, "America First", should not be considered by any one of our citizens as the catch-word by which one racial group covers its attempt to dominate the other racial factors. Americanism, unlike the Panistic movements of Slavism or Germanism, has no particular racial stamp; it denotes an ideal. To true Americans, Americanism signifies a rule of action, a barometer of civic and social conduct. It is, moreover, an extinguisher of the fires of Old World racial and religious prejudices the embers of which have been unfortunately fanned anew into flame by the European war. Only by living up to the ideal of Americanism can the varied elements of America live in harmony and unity. Americanism is the cementing material which keeps the metamorphosed elements in America together; its mission disregarded, the different ingredients loosen and decay. The fact, then, that at the present time we are stirred on to foster that spirit of Americanism, especially as applied to our immigrant citizens, will constitute a beneficent and lasting impression of the prevalent unpleasant racial emphasis. Everywhere we see patriotic men and women lending their best efforts to this end. The setting aside of the last Fourth of July as "Americanization Day", the added dignity and solemnity given to naturalization, the organization of classes for foreigners in civics and citizenship, the formation of societies, of which the National Americanization Committee is the foremost, to train our immigrants into loyal citizens, and lastly the National Conference on Immigration and Americanization under the auspices of the former committee are all processes in this work of racial fusion and harmony. This movement aims to make America the home of a unified people instead of the asylum of motley nationalities.

In the Immigrants in America Review of June we find that

.

Americanization "is to give the immigrant the best America has to offer and to retain for America the best in the immigrant." This definition, although all-inclusive, is fully in accord with the views of some of our eminent educators who have given the problem of Americanization some thought. Mr. Claxton, Federal Commissioner of education says: "For the enrichment of our national life as well as for the happiness and welfare of individuals we must respect their (the immigrants') ideals and preserve and strengthen all of the best of the Old World life they bring with them. We must not attempt to destroy and remakewe can only transform. Racial and national virtues must not be thoughtlessly exchanged for American vices." Mr. John H. Haaren, Associate Superintendent of New York City Schools, says: "The things of the higher kind-the spirituality, the reverence for authority, the love of art and music,-are valuable to soften the materialism that has accompanied our great advance in prosperity, and they should not be crushed out in the attempt to remake the immigrant."

This definition of Americanization given in The Immigrants in America Review, supported as we have seen by great authorities, should be considered as the end to which all means of Americanization must be directed and tested. Our social workers and educators must have this definition in mind in order that they may give the immigrant the best America has to offer, and to retain for America the best in the immigrant. For the purpose of our present discussion we shall treat of the Americanization of immigrant children only.

Let us then, without prejudice, subject our American institutions which help us in this work of Americanization to the acid test of the above definition. The factors of the American environment of immigrant children are: the immediate neighborhood, popular amusements, newspapers, social centers, libraries, and the public schools. Will the immediate neighborhood of the immigrant children give them "the best that America has to offer and retain for America the best in the immigrant?" Sometimes it may, but in the majority of cases it is derogatory to the development of good American citizenship. The immigrants are huddled together and come very little in contact with people outside their own nationality. They are clannish, and look with suspicion

upon any one of their fellows who leaves the "Ghetto" or "little Italy" for more suitable quarters. An Americanized immigrant told the writer that he was scolded by his countrymen because he moved out of the immigrant quarter. "You are ashamed of your countrymen; it is your duty to live among your own people and not to move out among strangers," they told him. The writer has lived in the immigrant quarters for many years, and unfortunately can find there little of Americanism. The poorly lighted and paved streets, the miserable back yards and alleys, and the general atmosphere of neglect-many times not the fault of the immigrant residents but of our apathetic lawgivers are conducive to physical and moral vegetation. Alas, even their Old World ideals which they brought with them are being lost in the feverish hubbub for materialism so characteristic of America. Under these circumstances immigrant children can never get in their vicinity American manners and refinement.

Again, popular amusements, the "movies" the cheap "shows" are not ideally American. The newspapers? We are of the opinion that the usual sensational journal which the immigrant child will most likely get is short of the required standard. The social centers are as yet, in the stage of experimentation; the future must demonstrate their efficacy. The libraries are a great educational force, and to their credit it must be said that according to the report of the Federal Bureau of Education they have "yielded to a period of direct community service," but according to the same report they reach comparatively few. The influence of our libraries in the work of Americanism is as yet slight.

Then, by the process of elimination the public school is the only force which may truly conform to our rigid rule. The writer who himself entered the public school as a foreigner in the "ungraded class" or "C class," as known in New York, has by his own experience and observation felt and observed the wonderful work of our public schools, the pillar of our democracy. It is in our common schools that the process of Americanization is kept at white heat, and if the other forces in this process are to aid in this work it must be only through the influence, the guidance of our schools. However, if the schools are to become a still greater instrument in this mission we must settle certain mooted questions. In the spirit of friendly co-operation let us examine a few

problems relating to our public school system as a tool of Amer icanizing the immigrant children. The solution of these problems must fall upon the noble men and women who are trying to save the immigrant children for America.

What shall our public-spirited men and women say to the teaching of a foreign language in our schools? In a certain city with a large foreign population, German is taught in one part of the city, Polish in another part, Italian in still another, and the Greeks and Jews have several times petitioned the School Board to have their respective languages also taught in the public schools. A Chicago teacher once said that if the language of the immigrant children will help draw them to our schools, then let us teach it because the foreign children will come in as different nationalities with different languages and will go out one nationality with one language. Then, the language of the immigrant is a "drawing card," a bait, so to speak, to catch the unsuspecting children in the net of our public schools, and as soon as they enter we give them a good dose of Americanism to counteract the influence of the foreign language. The situation is then thus, the teacher teaching the foreign language who is usually of the same nationality unconsciously inspires the children with the government, history and glories found in the literature of the respective foreign country, whereas the other teachers inspire the children with our history and our government. The child is then in a perplexed state of mind; he finds that his home influences and one teacher pull him away from, while all the other teachers draw him towards, America. Such a condition develops a divided allegiance which in similar circumstances to the present is dangerous to the welfare of the Republic.

Also, does not the fact that German is taught in our public schools in one part of the city, Polish in another part, Italian in another part, and possibly Hebrew and Greek in still anotherdoes not that fact show that there is a division in our ranks? Foreign languages, no doubt, are an academic and cosmopolitan medium, but the proper place for them is in secondary schools and colleges where all languages are offered to all, and not each language to one particular nationality. Let us remember that language is the strongest factor of national and racial identity, and it is that, more than anything else, that segregates each par

ticular nationality and separates them from each other. What has become of the beautiful ideal of the "melting pot"? The recognition of one national language is a tie that has bound us together. The writer is "strictly neutral." Let those who know ponder and for the sake of America solve the problem.

The next question that we must face is that of the regulated course of study. Shall the well-bred American children coming from homes of plenty and satisfaction and the children of immigrants coming from homes many times of want and deprivation with customs and ideals radically different from those of America-shall these two different elements have the same curriculum? Will a course of study which suits a school situated in a fashionable American neighborhood suit also a school of the immigrant section? The school of American neighborhood has but one type of national ideals, but the school of the immigrant quarter has conflicting national ideals. The object, the sino qua non of all education-the development of not merely a static, but a dynamic and aggressive patriotism—should be the same in all schools, but the modus operandi must be different.

Suppose the educators agree that the course of study as far as the immigrant children are concerned needs, to be sifted, what shall we designate as chaff and what as wheat? Mr. Claxton, Federal Commissioner of Education, says: "No systematic effort has ever been made to work out the best methods, therefore, we have little definite usable knowledge of the varying characteristics of the several races. We are ignorant even of the surest and quickest way to teach them to speak and understand English. To work out the several phases of this vital problem of the education of immigrants and their children should be the task of this bureau, and the bureau will gladly undertake it whenever sufficient funds are made available for that purpose." The writer is not an educator, and does not pretend to be an authority as to what this "surest and quickest way" should be; he is only a recently Americanized immigrant himself. But if we are to make the full use of our public schools in this work of Americanization, and if we are to make them the great instrument of American ideals that they should be, a definite policy must be adopted. In this work we need the co-operation of all.

Then, the problem of the private schools, parochial or other