Ethnicity, Race and Racism in Israel Zangwill's The Melting-Pot

by Stan Ana-Maria

The history of the United States of America is one based on colonialism and, later on,
marked by slavery: The first colonists came to America from Europe (more specifically
Spain, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Germany and Sweden), adding to the
already existing indigenous population and bringing with them African slaves. As a result,
the American Social Identity is one of a kind, characterized by both diversity and a sense of
unity at the same time, and its main enemy in this sense is none other than racism, as a
divisive force among individuals. And that is perhaps why it is quite impossible to define the
American society without taking into consideration crucial concepts such as ethnicity, race
and racism.

In his play, The Melting Pot, Israel Zangwill employed the three aforementioned
concepts in order to define his ideal of the American Social Identity, which was rooted in
acceptance, tolerance and cultural diversity. In Zangwill's utopian version of America, all
individuals are able to leave behind their differences, no matter how visceral, and unite into a
singular collective entity that defies any social barriers. In other words, he perceived the
American nation as a large family, with members belonging to all ethnicities and social
backgrounds, who could coexist in harmony and overcome their old feuds and prejudices.

As such, the aim of this essay is to provide a definition for the concepts of ethnicity
and race, as well as to highlight the differences between the two, and discuss the solution
against racism that Israel Zangwill provided in The Melting-Pot. In order to do so, I will
employ the help of authors Edward R. Kantowicz and Peter H. Wood.

I will now proceed by offering and then discussing a definition of the notion of
ethnicity, as provided by Edward R. Kantowicz in his essay, "Ethnicity":

Ethnicity may be defined as a collective, inherited, cultural identity, buttressed by social

structures and social networks, and often formulated in opposition to competing social
groups. Let us consider each element of this definition in turn.
First of all, ethnicity is a collective phenomenon, a "we feeling" that unites a number of
people. Ethnic groups may be large or small, and words can seriously mislead us when we
talk about them. For instance, when an ethnic group from Africa does not possess a nation-
state of its own, it is often called a tribe. Yet a group of similar size in Europe, which
happens to form the majority of a political state, will be called a nation. Both ethnic groups
(the Greek root, ethnos, means "people") are basically the same thing: a collectivity united
by a sense of common origin.
 Ethnicity is also an inherited trait. An ethnic group is not just a voluntary association
that one joins. One is born into and brought up in it. Sociologists may occasionally
consider certain groups like intellectuals or young urban professionals (the so-called
Yuppies) to be akin to ethnic groups: but this is probably not a helpful analogy. A person
earns his or her way into an intellectual or consuming class, but is nurtured into an ethnic
group.
One ethnic inheritance, however, is cultural, not genetic: A child learns his or her
language, values and beliefs, and ways of acting from his or her parents. An Irish child
raised by wolves will not grow up to be an Irish Catholic, nor will a child of Polish parents
adopted and raised by a Puerto Rican family retain Polish ethnic consciousness. (19-20)

Therefore, Kantowicz sees ethnicity as a group of people connected by the same

language, culture and ideals, rather than something determined by genetics. In other words,
individuals may be adopted and raised into ethnic groups, no matter their genetic inheritance.
However, Kantowicz goes on by making the distinction between ethnic groups and
intellectual and consuming classes, since one is raised into an ethnic group, but may earn
their position into an intellectual or consuming class. Thus, ethnicity is closely tied to the
education that someone receives from their family during childhood, and the values, beliefs,
customs and behaviours that they internalize as a result. As such, in order to belong to an
ethnic group, one must empathize and identify with it, and adhere to its culture ever since
early childhood.

But whereas the concept of ethnicity is determined by a sense of unity inside a group
that shares the same culture, values and beliefs, the notion of race is influenced solely by
genetics. And according to Peter H. Wood, it is quite the outdated concept:

Race is an idea whose time has almost passed. The last half millennium or so has witnessed
the rise, and the beginnings of the fall, of the race concept in Western thought. (...)
Race is by no means the immutable truth that many take it for. The modern dogma
surrounding the idea has evolved in contradictory and surprising ways over hundreds of
years, and only in the twentieth century, with the rise of human genetics and cultural
anthropology, has its grip on Western society begun to loosen. (...)
In the early 1990s, it seems clear to experts that mankind is essentially one, with all
human beings evolving from an unified ancestral stock that developed between 600.000
and one million years ago. Rather than being descended from apes, humans represent part
of a long evolutionary line, from which monkeys and apes apparently branched off several
million years ago. In evolutionary terms, therefore, no human group is significantly closer
than any other to mankind's simian relatives, and all human genetic groupings are
immeasurably further removed from their nearest nonhuman relations than from one
another. (...)
The physical differences we ascribe to the three major human groupings - the
Mongoloid, the Negroid, the Caucasoid - are not fixed; they continue to fluctuate and
change over time. But the rate of change is extremely slow, occurring over thousands of
years, for evolution depends upon a twofold process. First, genetic variation must occur
through the random procedure known as mutation. (...) For such mutation to endure,
however, natural selection must also occur, whereby the altered trait proves suitable
 enough to the organism's changing environment over time that is predominated in future
generations and the older, less adaptive trait disappears. (32)

In other words, what Peter H. Wood is trying is to do is to explain why and how the
concept of race is erroneous and no longer valid. In this respect, he employs his knowledge in
genetics and affirms that the human kind is in and of itself one singular race, and that the
three major groupings are nothing but mutations. As such, there is no such thing as a less
evolved grouping, as each one of them has resulted precisely from the organisms' necessity to
adapt to their environment. Therefore, neither grouping is more primitive or less evolved that
the others, because they all stem from the same common ancestor. Thus, the idea of a
superior race is rendered invalid, since all the human groupings are simply the results of
successive mutations that allowed the individuals to survive and thrive in certain
environments.

But whereas the concepts of ethnicity and race are two separate ideas, both of them
are equally affected by racism, as a prejudiced and discriminatory attitude towards
individuals, based on their ethnicity or belonging to a certain human grouping (more
commonly referred to as a "race").

In Israel Zangwill's The Melting-Pot, these concepts of ethnicity, race and racism are
employed in order to help illustrate the author's ideal of the America, as a place where all
ethnicities and "races" mingle into one singular nation, leaving behind their prejudices so as
to become one large and united family. David Quixano, the Jewish protagonist, is a perfect
embodiment of this mentality: Though his family dies as the result of an anti-Semitic
movement in Russia, David is hopeful about his future in America as an immigrant. As a
composer, he conceives his symphony, "The Crucible", where he expresses his wish that
America would become a land where all ethnicities may overcome their differences and feuds
and live in peace and harmony as one collective entity.

But what is remarkable about David is not necessarily his utopian ideal, but rather his
strength of character when it comes to sticking to his own principles. Despite his inner
conflict and the suffering of his family at the hands of the Russian supporters of the anti-
Semitic movement, he eventually lets go of his own anguish and prejudices and marries Vera
Revendal, a Russian immigrant, none other than the daughter of the baron whose actions have
led to the demise of the Quixano family back in Russia. In other words, David is not merely
an idealist, but a fair man capable of forgiveness, who understands that he too must change
his own mentality in order for a massive change to take place. As such, he becomes a role
model for others, due to his willingness to leave former grudges in the past in order to be able
to abide by his own principles.

Thus, both David and Vera decide to not judge each other based on the violent
conflict that has taken place between their two ethnic groups in the past. Therefore, David
chooses to forgive the Revendal family and refuses to blame Vera for her father's mistakes.
This attitude, as well as the obvious inseparability of the two lovers, prompts Baron Revendal
to repent for his past horrible deeds, which gives the reader hope that the future of America
may indeed change for the better, and that David's vision may someday be achieved.

Even more so, the couple formed by David and Vera is in and of itself a
representation of the "melting-pot", or the "crucible": In their new country, their love is no
longer a taboo, and is allowed to bloom and manifest itself little by little, until their
ethnicities don't matter anymore. They are no longer mere representatives of different ethnic
groups, but rather two people in love, belonging to the same American nation. Their
marriage, and therefore union under the institution of family, mirrors David's ideal of a
country where all inhabitants represent one single collective entity: "Ah, Vera, what is the
glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back,
compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labour and look
forward!" (Zangwill, 185)

In conclusion, in this essay I have managed to fulfil my aim, namely to explain the
difference between ethnicity (as the result of one's upbringing into a certain culture) and race
(as an outdated and no longer valid concept in genetics), as well as to discuss how racism (as
a prejudiced attitude towards individuals belonging to certain human groupings and
ethnicities) is influenced by these two concepts. Furthermore, I have analysed how these
three concepts of ethnicity, race and racism, were employed in Israel Zangwill's play, The
Melting Pot, in order to illustrate his utopian vision of America, as a place where all
ethnicities melt into one singular collective entity, leaving behind their differences.

Works Cited

Kantowicz, Edward R. "Ethnicity", American Studies M.A Entrance Examination

Reader, University of Bucharest English Department Center for American Studies, 2009, pp.
17-30
 Wood. Peter H. "Racism", American Studies M.A Entrance Examination Reader,
University of Bucharest English Department Center for American Studies, 2009, pp. 32-46

Zangwill, Israel, The Melting-Pot, drama in four acts, The Macmillan company, New
York, 1909, pp. 185