Two key words related to minority and majority groups and discussed in the lecture this week are ACCULTURATION and ASSIMILATION. What are the differences between the two? Why are these processes sometimes difficult for the minority group involved? > Ethnic Differencesclass lessonIntroductionOur country often is described as a nation of immigrants. The founding immigrants, however, had three basic characteristics in common â they were primarily from Northern and Western Europe, they came from nations with approximately the same level of social development, and they were Caucasian. These were the groups that established the foundations of what became American culture. The founding fathers of the United States established as law and ideology that all men are created equal and each one should have the right to strive for success or failure without inherited advantage. Success in America was not guaranteed, but the right to try was encouraged. Even into the early 20th century, American ideology was that any immigrant or group who worked hard, persevered, and measured up to our ideals would eventually assimilate into the great American melting pot. This was a grand idea, but it was based on the assumption that the immigrants were, in spite of nationality, European and Caucasian. Persons of color were assumed to be savages, some “noble savages” perhaps, but savages nonetheless, and lesser persons as a result. It is from this ideology that a great deal of our inability to accept distinctive differences in others arises, and it is here that we need to try to develop some understandings of how this impacted the identity of many minority groups as both a part of this nation and as separate people.IdentityAs we discussed in a previous lecture, disadvantaged groups know more about those helping to keep them disadvantaged than the other way around. It is primarily a survival technique. Because each group’s experiences are unique, they will develop a view of themselves in relation to that of the more powerful. The greater the degree of disadvantage, the clearer the minority group’s perception is of its so-called place in the relationship. This may not always be the case for the dominant group. In slave-owning societies, many slave owners developed affection for their slaves and believed that they were caring for them as though they were children rather than property. If a slave expressed any reluctance or resentment, the slave owners were as likely to feel as hurt as they were angered. The slave, however, never had any doubt that he or she was a slave and that status dominated every aspect of his or her life and relationships with the slave masters. The master could afford to occasionally be magnanimous with his slaves, but the slave could never step even an inch outside of the slave identity without peril.Physical Attributes and IdentityThe closer the disadvantaged groups resembled the dominant group, the less need there was for sharp demarcations between dominant and subordinate groups. Ethnic Europeans, for example, could define themselves in terms of what they could do to reduce the differences between themselves and the dominant group. Assimilation was an attainable goal. In short, their self-identity focused on similarities with the dominant group, as opposed to maintaining a protective social distance.Ethnic DifferencesIn time, European ethnic differences declined in importance as second- and third-generation children of immigrants became less identifiable and more acceptable. The emphasis on identifiable physical characteristics, however, did not. Following the Civil War and Emancipation, color lines became critical to social interactions between the dominant Caucasians and the non-Caucasians. The distinctions were not just applied to former slaves, but also to persons of any race other than Caucasian. Miscegenation laws prohibiting marriage between Caucasians and non-Caucasians persisted well into the 20th century..AcculturatePersons of color â as members of groups readily identified by physical characteristics are known â find it difficult or impossible to assimilate completely, because it is always possible to identify them as belonging to a distinct category. They can and do, however, acculturate into society. There still remains that gap between their being American and who they are racially and/or ethnically. The only way to close that gap is to develop an identity that incorporates both aspects of who they are. Some of this appears in subcultural formations, as we discussed earlier, but the most important aspect is that this identity always reflects the group’s perceptions and understandings of its historical relationship with the dominant group and dominant ideology.The end result for many minority groups is an identity that is neither one nor the other. For example, a second- or third-generation Japanese American visiting his or her family’s ancestral home in Japan would find that the residents would consider him or her to be American rather than Japanese, and at home in the U.S., he or she would be considered a Japanese citizen who lives in the U.S. The issue is not necessarily acceptability, but rather differential treatment by the dominant group. Many Latinos and other ethnic groups whose families have lived in the U.S. for multiple generations are often asked how long they have lived here because they speak English so well. The implication is that since they look different, they must be new arrivals.