American Conversations

4. Telling Stories

4 Telling Stories They [seniors] say that their parents or grandparents came from Poland, Ireland, and that kind of thing, Italy, and when they came here they could not speak English either, but it gave them no excuse not to try, go to school, try to be the best you can, try to learn the American ways.... Their grandparents, their parents worked hard in these mills and stuff to see to it, that they got educated. Their parents, grandparents, were not trouble, they did not go on welfare, they were not shown any special favoritism , they were not given anything, in other words. And they don't think the Puerto Ricans should be either. They should have to try like everybody else. Ifthey can't try then get out. They have no patience for the idea that you come here and go on welfare. - Paul Bowers, Euro-American teacher, lifelong Arnhem resident, age fifty-four Racialized groups are frequently evaluated for their fitness as members in the national community from the perspective ofthe "immigrant analogy" or "ethnic myth" (Steinberg 1989). This assumption rests on the premise that "there are no essential long-term differences-in relation to the larger society-between the third world or racial minorities and the European ethnic groups" (Blauner 1972:5). All ethnic groups are seen as similarly situated in terms of the structures of opportunity. Despite sustained challenges beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, in recent years this assumption has taken on a new life in public discourse. Although arguments for the genetic inferiority of racialized groups that once provided legitimation for societal and educational inequalities may no longer 81 Copyrighted Material 82 Chapter 4 be acceptable in the mainstream (Omi and Winant 1994), these inequalities are now ascribed to the cultural and linguistic practices of poor Americans of color (see, for example , Gregory 1993; Steinberg 1989; Urciuoli 1996). Frequently the "immigrant analogy" underlies arguments against the government's "coddling" of racial and linguistic minorities through various government-sponsored programs . It fails to recognize the relevance of a history of racial oppression for understanding the stubborn persistence of racial and economic inequalities in contemporary society. It assumes that racial inequalities can be eradicated through eliminating individual acts of racism attributable to individual attitudes and prejudices. Most problematically, within such discourses the failure of a particular group to achieve parity with other ethnic groups situates the responsibility for failed upward mobility within the group's culture or its individual members' behaviors, thereby averting attention from the differing historical trajectories and structural constraints that confront contemporary racialized groups. These discourses, in turn, provide a rationale for social policies and legitimation of the existing system of inequities . It becomes essential, therefore, to examine the discourses that construct economically marginalized groups as somehow defective or pathological, or that deny the relevance of the experiences of racialized groups in explaining persisting inequities, in order to find out how people come to accept these assumptions and reject evidence to the contrary. Contemporary struggles over public school curricula and programs are also, in part, struggles over the validity of this immigrant analogy. "Safe" differences among groups, in the wake of the "new ethnicity" of the 1970s, today are perCopyrighted Material Telling Stories 83 rnissible. Not surprisingly, multicultural curricula in the schools has most frequently tended to take the form of celebrating diversity, what critics label "heroes and holidays," "foods, festivals and famous folks," or in England "saris and samosas" approaches. These celebratory moves have frequently evolved into advocacy of cultural pluralism and identity politics, and such forms of multicultural education have been criticized for their failure to address issues of "power, hegemony, and oppression" (Kenyatta and Tai 1997). However, multicultural education initiatives in the United States have also moved beyond "safe" differences (e.g., Banks 1991; Cortes 1991; Levine et aI. 1995; Nieto 1996; see also Newfield and Gordon 1996). Leading advocates in the field refute popular visions of the nation as a color-blind land of equal opportunity for all. They advocate critical pedagogy and antiracist teaching, which incorporates a more inclusive history and literature curriculum that addresses the history of racial oppression in the United States.l In Arnhem, events occurring late in the summer of 1991 gave impetus to a protracted public debate regarding the need for multicultural and bilingual education. In examining mainstream community and school discourse during this period I found widespread acceptance of the...