I agree with Daniel’s belief that it is best to ignore the notion of “old” and “new” immigration and consider immigration as a continuum from the beginning until today. There are similarities and differences between and among groups, but there is not evidence of a clear separation between “old” and “new”. To me, I think it is probably more relevant to understanding the impact of ethnicity on our country if it is seen that way – as a whole.
I found the immigration history of the Irish and German particularly interesting and our discussion of the Tenement Museum in New York reminded me of how visiting that museum changed how I felt about the history of our country. Being in that tenement building and participating in a re-enactment of immigrant life with a German Jewish family was like stepping into their lives – the hardship, the anxiety, but also the strength and hope they shared as families and as communities. History came alive and all the dots were connected because they had so much more meaning than words on a page. It seems that whenever an academic experience can become personal, it has a better chance to be meaningful and learning more integrated.
Reading this history text, or any history text, for that matter, can be hard to humanize – to put a faces on groups of people, to imagine their feelings, hopes and dreams beyond statistics and generalizations. It would be great if this class could construct an experience that would allow us to work directly or interact with immigrant or ethnic groups in our community. The Oral History Research Project is an excellent way to personalize the immigrant experience in this country and I am really enjoying working on it. My interview supported Daniel’s thought to ignore the notion of “old” and “new” immigrant. My interviewee immigrated to the U.S. in 1983 from France and his story echoes so much we have read about all the immigrant experience we have learned about to date. Looking forward to hearing about other peoples interviews.
No comments:
Post a Comment