: âWere the Nineteenth-Century Big Businessmen âRobber Baronsâ?â
Howard Zinn argues that the big businessmen of the late nineteenth century built up monopolies at the expense of their competitors and the general public, while John S. Gordon makes a case for these same big businessmen as key contributors to American industrial success and better lives for Americans with better products at affordable prices. Briefly summarize the main points that these two authors bring to the table concerning American business success during the Gilded Age. What are Zinnâs strongest and weakest arguments? What are Gordonâs strongest and weakest arguments? Which author is most convincing and briefly explain why? Also, briefly explain why you disagree with the arguments of the opposing side. Suggested length: 2-3 pages, standard margins, double-spaced, and Times New Roman 12-point font.
OR Bonus Response Paper Two: âIs the United States a Declining Power?â
While this question involves more recent American history and the world situation is constantly evolving, it is still a very interesting topic to consider. What are some of Andrew J. Bacevichâs more compelling arguments for a decline in American power? What are some of his weaker arguments? What are some of Fareed Zakariaâs stronger points for his argument that the United States continues to maintain its position as the most powerful nation in the world? What are some of his less effective arguments? Which one is more convincing and briefly explain why? Briefly explain”
Sample Solution
The contrast between the Canadian cultural âmosaicâ and the American âmelting potâ refers to the popular conception of two different models of migrant acculturation. From a sociological perspective, this distinction refers to contrasting models of integration and assimilation that are central to Canadaâs self-conception as a multicultural society. The concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot arose from the challenge of conceiving cultural identity in settler nations. Countries like Canada and the United States could not claim to be ethnically, linguistically, or religiously cohesive in the way that European nation states did as they were founded by diverse migrant groups who dispossessed indigenous peoples of their lands. The United States developed an image of a melting pot in which civic belonging led to national identity, and cultural or religious differences were made secondary through âAmericanization,â a form of partial assimilation (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2013, p. 266). Founded on the premise of biculturalism between Protestant English and Catholic French groups, Canada has seen itself reflecting the idea of a cultural mosaic. This model is explicitly contrasted with the American melting pot and refers to a form of multiculturalism that allows greater room for coexistence between different groups (Banting, Courchene, & Seidle, 2007). Instead of emphasizing assimilation, this model emphasizes integration. While these terms originate in popular discourses about immigration and acculturation, their relation to the concepts of assimilation and integration give them sociological meaning. From a sociological perspective, the concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot refer to different models of migrant acculturation within their new society. These models are reflected in the theories of pluralism and assimilation, respectively. Pluralism is reflected in the development of visible minority neighbourhoods in major urban centres. In Canada, visible minority neighbourhoods have been expanding rapidly since the 1980s, making the âethnic mosaic in Canadian cities more diverse and visibleâ (Hou & Picot, 2004, p. 13). Visibility is an important aspect of this expansion. Visible minority neighbourhoods are visible not only because of their populations but also because of the presence of businesses and services that cater to a particular ethnic community. The ethos of pluralism and multiculturalism views this kind of visibility as positive for the overall Canadian polity, with the maintenance of ethnic identity and religious, educational, and welfare institutions specific to that community as positive (Hou & Picot, 2004). This model is distinct from an assimilationist perspective on immigration. The spatial assimilation model proposes that immigrants initially live in visible minority neighbourhoods because they lack resources, but as they improve their situation they convert their socioeconomic achievements into an improved spatial position and assimilate with the majority group (Fong & Wilkes, 1999). This model is reminiscent of the melting pot, where social and cultural differences that initially characterize migrant groups are lessened over time until said group primarily identifies with the constructed, civic identity of the settler nation. But while these models are associated with Canada, in the case of the cultural mosaic, and the United States, in the case of the melting pot, the application of these models to Canada shows greater complexity in the sociology of migration. The idea that migrants to Canada retain their cultural identity as part of a mosaic rather than assimilating has been contradicted by sociological research. Rather than retaining all unique cultural or social characteristics over time, immigrant minorities do appear to assimilate in certain key ways. Some migrant groups have considerably greater rates of gender inequality in labour force participation than is found in mainstream Canadian populations (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). This inequality is greatest among religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, though it appears to reflect national cultures in countries of origin more than it reflects differences in religious beliefs concerning the social roles of men and women (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). Recent migrants to Canada, in other words, retain the gendered division of labour found in their home countries to an extent that distinguishes them from the rest of the Canadian workforce. The research also indicates, however, that this difference tends to fade over time, with longer settled migrants reflecting general labour force participation rates to a greater degree (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). This suggests that these groups are assimilating with regards to Canadian norms of work and gender. A similar finding has been observed in education. Immigrants who come to Canada as children or are second generation have more years of>
The contrast between the Canadian cultural âmosaicâ and the American âmelting potâ refers to the popular conception of two different models of migrant acculturation. From a sociological perspective, this distinction refers to contrasting models of integration and assimilation that are central to Canadaâs self-conception as a multicultural society. The concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot arose from the challenge of conceiving cultural identity in settler nations. Countries like Canada and the United States could not claim to be ethnically, linguistically, or religiously cohesive in the way that European nation states did as they were founded by diverse migrant groups who dispossessed indigenous peoples of their lands. The United States developed an image of a melting pot in which civic belonging led to national identity, and cultural or religious differences were made secondary through âAmericanization,â a form of partial assimilation (Castles, de Haas, & Miller, 2013, p. 266). Founded on the premise of biculturalism between Protestant English and Catholic French groups, Canada has seen itself reflecting the idea of a cultural mosaic. This model is explicitly contrasted with the American melting pot and refers to a form of multiculturalism that allows greater room for coexistence between different groups (Banting, Courchene, & Seidle, 2007). Instead of emphasizing assimilation, this model emphasizes integration. While these terms originate in popular discourses about immigration and acculturation, their relation to the concepts of assimilation and integration give them sociological meaning. From a sociological perspective, the concepts of cultural mosaic and melting pot refer to different models of migrant acculturation within their new society. These models are reflected in the theories of pluralism and assimilation, respectively. Pluralism is reflected in the development of visible minority neighbourhoods in major urban centres. In Canada, visible minority neighbourhoods have been expanding rapidly since the 1980s, making the âethnic mosaic in Canadian cities more diverse and visibleâ (Hou & Picot, 2004, p. 13). Visibility is an important aspect of this expansion. Visible minority neighbourhoods are visible not only because of their populations but also because of the presence of businesses and services that cater to a particular ethnic community. The ethos of pluralism and multiculturalism views this kind of visibility as positive for the overall Canadian polity, with the maintenance of ethnic identity and religious, educational, and welfare institutions specific to that community as positive (Hou & Picot, 2004). This model is distinct from an assimilationist perspective on immigration. The spatial assimilation model proposes that immigrants initially live in visible minority neighbourhoods because they lack resources, but as they improve their situation they convert their socioeconomic achievements into an improved spatial position and assimilate with the majority group (Fong & Wilkes, 1999). This model is reminiscent of the melting pot, where social and cultural differences that initially characterize migrant groups are lessened over time until said group primarily identifies with the constructed, civic identity of the settler nation. But while these models are associated with Canada, in the case of the cultural mosaic, and the United States, in the case of the melting pot, the application of these models to Canada shows greater complexity in the sociology of migration. The idea that migrants to Canada retain their cultural identity as part of a mosaic rather than assimilating has been contradicted by sociological research. Rather than retaining all unique cultural or social characteristics over time, immigrant minorities do appear to assimilate in certain key ways. Some migrant groups have considerably greater rates of gender inequality in labour force participation than is found in mainstream Canadian populations (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). This inequality is greatest among religious groups such as Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, though it appears to reflect national cultures in countries of origin more than it reflects differences in religious beliefs concerning the social roles of men and women (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). Recent migrants to Canada, in other words, retain the gendered division of labour found in their home countries to an extent that distinguishes them from the rest of the Canadian workforce. The research also indicates, however, that this difference tends to fade over time, with longer settled migrants reflecting general labour force participation rates to a greater degree (Reitz, Phan, & Banerjee, 2015). This suggests that these groups are assimilating with regards to Canadian norms of work and gender. A similar finding has been observed in education. Immigrants who come to Canada as children or are second generation have more years of>
