largely cultural than racial, and conversely the obstacles to assimilation under existing conditions in the United States are much more matters of national affiliation than of racial type.

In one respect the national barrier is a more serious obstacle to assimilation than the racial barrier; in another respect it is less serious. It is more serious because, generally speaking, cultures will not blend. You can not mix languages, or religions, or systems of government, or family ideals, or the moral code. The idea of rightness-the basic idea of the "mores "-is so prominent in the structure of nationality that there can be little compromise. The same thing can not be both good and bad, nor can two opposing ideas both be good.

Nationality is a less serious barrier than race, because nationality can be changed. The ties of nationality are strong and stubborn, but it is possible for an individual to forsake one national allegiance and adopt another. The process must be a gradual one, and while it is going on the individual passes through an unsettled, anomalous spiritual state, the bitterness and perplexities of which probably can not be comprehended by one who has not experienced them.

The real problem of Americanization is the problem of developing a common nationality in the United States, which, as will be shown later, involves primarily the substitution of the American culture for their own native cultures on the part of all the different ethnic groups in our midst.

July 18-The Recent Ameri

canization Movement

SCRIPTURE LESSON: Read Deut. 7:6-15. The passage selected emphasizes righteous

ness.

A DIVIDED POPULATION: The Great War drew aside the curtain from many obscure phases of our national life. None of them was more significant than the divided state of our population. It was revealed that among our foreign-born residents there were some who were outspokenly and unreservedly sympathetic with one of the countries with which we were at war, that there were more who were in the transition stage of partial assimilation, and felt a divided allegiance between the country of their

origin and that of their adoption, and that others, possibly the largest group of all, were devoted in spirit and intent to the United States, but had received only the most meager initiation into the real life of the nation. With a recognition of these facts came a sudden realization of the menace they presented, not only in times of war, but in times of peace.

A wave of consternation spread rapidly over the country. The sentiment for some real restriction of immigration, which had been growing for several years before the war and had found partial expression in the literacy test, began rapidly to crystallize. A bitterness and hostility toward all foreigners as such began to develop to a degree unknown for half a century. At this juncture a new note was sounded. It was announced that the failure of assimilation in the past, which no one could longer deny, was due to our own attitude of indifference toward the immigrant, and our failure to provide any facilities for his incorporation into our body politic. It was proclaimed that both duty and self-interest demanded that we forthwith devote ourselves intelligently and vigorously to transforming our various foreign elements into genuine Americans. To this movement the name Americanization was given.

EARLY REMEDIES PROPOSED: Some of the early manifestations of the Americanization craze (for such it really was for a time) were almost bizarre in their naïveté. Cities all over the land were urged to turn the Fourth of July into " Americanization Day," with parades of naturalized citizens, and solemn ceremonies attending the conferring of citizenship papers. Huge volumes of posters, leaflets, and circulars were issued, bearing polite platitudes about the duties and blessings of American citizenship, some true and some glaringly false. Night classes and special schools were instituted, designed to "interpret America" to the foreigner, and pageants and folk-dances were arranged to allow the foreigner to interpret himself to America. Prizes were offered for the best designs for workingmen's dwellings. Lessons, lectures, and literature abounded everywhere.

Many of these early efforts probably most of them-were good in themselves. (Some of them, as will appear, were thoroughly vicious.) But considered as means

to an end they were almost ludicrous in their futility. It is obviously a good thing for a group of aliens to listen to a series of addresses, carefully translated to them, on the constitution, history, and government of the United States. But that will hardly fit them for American citizenship. There is no doubt that our immigrant laborers ought to be housed much better than they are, and any. thing tending in that direction is commendable. But good housing does not make Americans out of immigrants. Some of our most disloyal foreigners have lived in excellent houses. Folk-dances, pageants, and community sings are admirable activities, and tend in the direction of good feeling. But they do not go very far toward facilitating a change of nationality.

EDUCATIONAL METHODS: This was the experimental period, however, and we should not judge these efforts too harshly, as long as they were characterized by honesty and ordinary common sense. Out of these heterogeneous activities there gradually emerged certain well-defined lines of effort which had the promise of producing positive and permanent results. At the present time the Americanization movement is tending to standardize itself upon these foundations. Foremost among them is the education of the foreigners in speaking and reading the English language. So prominent is this that many persons, if called upon to define Americanization, would say, "Teaching English to foreigners." Along with this goes other rudimentary education, particularly in American history and government. Other activities include teaching immigrant women American standards and methods of housekeeping, dressmaking, care of children, etc. These are the basic elements in the Americanization program. Innumerable other features are to be found in various combinations, such as club work for men and women, vocational training, first aid instruction, and a wide variety of educational, recreational, and social activities. Primarily, however, the movement is an educational one, and is so defined by some of the foremost writers.

The country has put itself vigorously back of this movement. The Department of the Interior, particularly through the Bureau of Education, has done much to foster its growth. Different States have passed laws creating machinery and appropriating

money to put these ideas into effect. Colleges and universities have offered courses and even established chairs of Americanization. Every social agency worthy the name is trying to contribute in some way. Beyond a doubt much good is being done. Just how far this program will lead us on the path toward genuine assimilation will be considered in the closing paper of this series.

One of the most prominent features of the early Americanization movement, which has not entirely disappeared even yet, demands particular notice because of its thoroughly mistaken and pernicious character. This is the pressure brought to bear upon the alien to become naturalized. In the early literature of the movement, equally prominent with the slogans, "Attend night school" and "Learn the English language 99 was the injunction, "Become an American citizen." In glowing terms the immigrant was assured that citizenship would mean a better home, a better job, and a better chance for his children." This was fundamentally vicious in the first place, because it was not true, and the immigrant was destined to find out that it was not true, and in the second place, because it appealed to selfish motives to induce the alien to become naturalized. But most of all, it was vicious because it encouraged absolutely the wrong conception of American citizenship.

CITIZENSHIP ESTIMATED: Citizenship in the United States is, or ought to be, a great prize, one of the highest political blessings the world has to offer, a goal for earnest endeavor. It ought to be presented to the alien as a reward to strive for, not as something which he is urged to take as a mark of condescension on his part. He ought to be imprest with the thought that if he can prepare himself, and prove himself worthy, citizenship will be bestowed upon him as the highest gift that America can grant. If it were true that our naturalization procedure afforded any guarantee that the alien was truly assimilated, urging him to become a citizen might be interpreted as urging him to fit himself for citizenship. But such is not the case. Our naturalization procedure is nearly meaningless.

There is still a strong tendency in some quarters to coerce immigrants into becoming citizens, and various penalties in the way of deportation, etc., are proposed for failure

to do so. It is hard to understand how any one in his right mind can imagine that an unassimilated foreigner is any more desirable as a citizen than as an alien, or that an immigrant who acquires citizenship, not because he prizes it, but because he wishes to avoid deportation, can be a very valuable member of our electorate.

By all means let us urge our foreign neighbors to fit themselves for full partici. pation in our national life. But let us lay the emphasis upon preparation, not upon the fulfilment of a certain prescribed formality.

July 25-The Possibilities of True Assimilation

SCRIPTURE: Read 1 Kings 8:41-43. Americanization is assimilation into America. Only the name is new. The thing itself is as old as immigration and America. More real Americanization took place before the word was popularized than has been accomplished since. Americanization for the foreigner means the abandonment of all that made him distinctly an Italian or an Englishman or a Slovak, and the achievement of that which makes him specifically an American. Americanization for the American means the reception of the immigrant into full communion in the national life, without any sense of aloofness based upon consciousness of a difference in racial or national origin.

WHAT AMERICAN MEANS: America is a spiritual entity, existing only in the minds and hearts of men. It is not a section of the earth's surface. It is not an aggregation of population. It is not an organized piece of governmental machinery. Arguments about certain aspects of immigration are often met with the assertion that the only true Americans are the Indians. Nothing could be a worse distortion of the truth. There was no America here while the Indians held sway. The Pilgrim Fathers did not find America waiting for them on the west side of the Atlantic; they brought America with them in the Mayflower. America grew up out of the character and ideals of the pioneers who settled in Virginia, and New York, and New England. The only true America to-day is a body of ideas, ideals, beliefs, convictions, standards, and attitudes of mind and heart, and the only true Americans are those who embody this combination of spiritual reali

ties. Matters of birth and race are not determinative. A prominent immigrant remarked not long ago that he was a better American when he came to this country twenty years ago than he is now. That is certainly a possibility, just as it is undoubtedly true that thousands of persons who were born and have lived all their lives on American soil are very far from being true Americans.

To be Americanized means to divest oneself of all ideals and ideas, all habits of mind and heart, which are antagonistic or contrary to American ideals, or inconsistent or inharmonious with them. In the place of foreign affiliations must come sympathy with all that is genuinely American, so that the individual no longer thinks or feels or loves as a member of some other nationality, but solely as an American.

To many persons the idea that Americanization involves a change exclusively on the part of the immigrant seems narrow and illiberal. It seems to savor of an unworthy national pride. It is popular just now to assert that Americanization must be a mutual process, and that the American must be ready to give as much as he demands. This is a generous sentiment, but it will hardly survive critical analysis. It assumes something which, as already stated, is an impossibility-the blending of cultures. Cultures can not be blended, and the attempt to mix them results in the destruction of all nationality. Furthermore, even tho two cultures could be blended, the situation would still be impossible in the United States, for we are not dealing with two cultures, but scores. Let those who assert that we must modify our culture to meet that of the foreigner tell us whether it is toward the Russian culture, or the Irish, or the Greek that we must change our own.

And

last of all (to augment the superlative) the task is made still less possible in this country by the fact that the different foreign groups must be made harmonious toward each other, one of the most difficult aspects of the whole problem. This can be accomplished only as all gravitate toward a common center. And the logical center is the American type, not only because it is numerically predominant, but because it is the one that the processes of social evolution have proved to be adapted to this social setting.

VITALITY OF AMERICANISM: This does not

mean that the American type is fixt. Far from it. Virile nationalities are dynamic, and develop in response to the forces which act upon them. One of the forces which shape the American nation is the great force of the influence of foreign nationalities. It would be idle to deny its power. We have many advantages to gain by the utilization of the splendid traits and qualities which the immigrants bring with them. But the process is much more like the grafting of healthy scions on to a powerful trunk than the pouring together of molten metals.

The vital question of all is, to what extent and by what means does this spiritual transformation take place? It is evidently one which touches the foundations of personality and is not to be accomplished by any light measures. The only way in which it can take place is through contacts between the foreigner and the American. In the past we trusted to the natural, spontaneous, unconscious contacts which arose from the very fact of living together in American communities. In the days of a simpler social organization and a smaller proportion of foreigners these contacts existed and were measurably adequate. But by a process so gradual that we did not fully perceive it conditions changed so that the natural contacts disappeared almost entirely. Now, through the Americanization movement, we are trying to fill the gap with contacts built up artificially by deliberate efforts. Most of these efforts are of an educational character.

The question now becomes, Are educational measures adequate to accomplish a genuine change in nationality? The answer must be emphatically in the negative. No amount of instruction about the history, customs, government, and principles of the United States can make an American out of a foreigner. Most of the teaching which is now being done under the name of Americanization could be done just as well, or even better, in foreign lands by instructors sent over from here. But it would not make Americans. Many of the most un-American of our foreign population know more about the government of the United States than the average native. Americanization is not primarily an intellectual, but an 'emotional process. It is a form of mutual adoption.

SHARING OF COMMON LIFE: The first step in genuine assimilation is what somebody

has described by the fine phrase a vocabu. lary of experience." All the accomplishments in the way of English, civics, etc., are good, and are, in fact, necessary prerequisites and means to assimilation. But

true Americanization begins only when there is a sharing of a common life. And this implies mutual interests and pursuits which can not possibly be supplied by the activities of the professional Americanizer. This emphasizes the responsibility of the everyday American citizen toward assimilation. After all, the outcome depends primarily upon him. On the part of most foreigners we may safely assume a readiness to undergo Americanization as fast as natural limitations will allow. They are ready to be taken into the fold. But the gates must be opened and the impediments removed.

In an earlier paragraph it was stated that race antipathy is natural, can not be eliminated by an act of the will, and is nothing to be ashamed of. The same is true of national antipathy. But it is one thing to feel antipathy, and another thing to allow oneself to be governed by it. While it is not a matter for shame to feel estrangement from a foreigner, it is shameful to allow that feeling to make one less just, or helpful, or considerate in one's treatment of the foreigner. On the part of Americans, the first move must be to destroy every needless limitation, handicap, or discrimination which is laid upon the immigrant. By every method which is under the control of the will let us seek to tear down the wall of partition. In so doing we will inevitably establish the beginnings of a common experience. Through this common experience, in the course of time, antipathy will give way to sympathy, and the process of genuine Americanization will be under way.

A

THE INDIVIDUAL'S TASK: We can not assimilate our immigrants by groups. change of nationality is an individual matter, and the contacts which bring it about must be largely individual. There is one method of Americanization which, if it could be applied, would bring results with absolute certainty. If every American family could naturally and spontaneously make true friends of one foreign family, or one foreign individual, we could put our minds at rest about Americanization. This ideal is, of course, impossible. The next best thing is to come as near to it as possible.

IT is worth while to examine a little more closely what the principles are that are peculiar to America, and how the movement to establish and to protect liberty here has differed from the same movement in other lands. The British empire is a great liberty-loving, selfgoverning democracy. The French republic is the same. Among the newly-born nations men are everywhere organizing for the definition and defense of liberty. How does America differ from all these, and what gives Americanism its peculiar place in the history of freedom?

Our liberties-civil, political and religious have their roots away back in the history of the English-speaking peoples. Those peoples have always held themselves to be free, and when tyrants and ruling groups have fastened control upon them, even for long periods of time, the people themselves have planned ways and means of regaining their liberties. Even in Magna Carta, King John did not give the barons, speaking on behalf of the people of England, any new privileges and liberties. He only confirmed the people in their rights and agreed to stop interfering with them. Liberty is not born in a moment. It is the creation of thousands of years of experience, of effort, of service and of sacrifice.

The peculiarity of the history of liberty in America is that a new start was made in civil and political organization, as if one were to undertake to write history on a clean sheet of white paper. The men and women who nearly 300 years ago crossed the Atlantic in the tiny bark Mayflower had a very definite idea in their minds. They intended to seek a land where, without the limitations of Old World traditions and conflicts, they could make a fresh and hopeful start in the development of a society devoted to liberty. For 150 years they and their successors labored and struggled, and

finally in the Declaration of Independence the new nation, so long in preparation, was born and took its place among the sovereign nations of the earth.

To declare a nation independent is one thing, however, and to build it upon a sound and lasting foundation is quite another thing. The Declaration of Independence would have been futile had it not been followed by the Constitution of the United States. There is no need now to eulogize that remarkable document or to quote eminent Europeans in its praise. Every true American knows what it is and knows what he owes to it.

Other nations have had constitutions and other nations have established free government. What constitutes America's peculiar contribution to the cause of liberty?

I answer, three things:

I. The federal principle, which our Supreme Court has defined to be the indestructible union of indestructible States, enables Maine and California, Montana and Alabama, Virginia and Colorado to be held together in one great national allegiance while retaining the right to manage and direct their local concerns in their own way. The city states of Greece, however notable and however interesting, failed to extend themselves over any considerable territory because they did not make use of the federal principle, but endeavored rather to secure absolute uniformity of governmental control and administration. The Roman Empire made an ingenious use of the one form of the federal principle, but it fell for other reasons. Had the attempt been made wholly to unify and centralize the government of the United States, it is not unreasonable to think that our country would long ago have broken into several parts through the sheer brittleness of its sustaining structure. True Americanism involves the maintenance of the federal