Hubbry Logo
Cultural assimilationCultural assimilationMain
Open search
Cultural assimilation
Community hub
Cultural assimilation
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cultural assimilation
Cultural assimilation
Cultural assimilation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Immigration
General
History and law
Social processes
Political Theories
Causes
Opposition and reform

Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group.[1] The melting pot model is based on this concept. A related term is cultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture. This approach is also known as cultural pluralism,[2] and it forms the basis of a cultural mosaic model that upholds the preservation of cultural rights. Another closely related concept is acculturation, which occurs through cultural diffusion and involves changes in the cultural patterns of one or both groups, while still maintaining distinct characteristics.[3]

There are various types of cultural assimilation, including full assimilation and forced assimilation. Full assimilation is common, as it occurs spontaneously.[4] Assimilation can also involve what is called additive assimilation,[5] in which individuals or groups expand their existing cultural repertoire rather than replacing their ancestral culture. This is an aspect it shares with acculturation as well.[2] When used as a political ideology, assimilationism refers to governmental policies of deliberately assimilating ethnic groups into a national culture.[6] It encompasses both voluntary and involuntary assimilation.[7]

In both cultural assimilation and integration, majority groups may expect minority groups to outright adopt the everyday practices of the dominant culture by using the common language in conversations, following social norms, integrating economically and engaging in sociopolitical activities such as cultural participation, active advocacy and electoral and community participation.[8][9] Various forms of exclusion, social isolation, and discrimination can hinder the progress of this process.[10][11][12]

Cultural integration, which is mostly found in multicultural communities, resembles a type of sociocultural assimilation because, over time, the minority group or culture may assimilate into the dominant culture, and the defining characteristics of the minority culture may become less obverse or disappear for practical reasons. Hence, in certain sociopolitical climates, cultural integration could be conceptualized as similar to cultural assimilation, with the former considered merely as one of the latter's phases.[13]

Overview

[edit]

Cultural assimilation may occur either quickly or gradually, depending on the circumstances of the group. Full assimilation takes place when members of a society are no longer distinguishable from those of the dominant group in that society.[4]

Whether a group is expected to assimilate is often disputed by both members of the group and the dominant members of society. Cultural assimilation does not necessarily result in similarity of appearance. Geographical and other natural barriers between groups, even when influenced by a predominant culture, may lead to cultural differences.[vague] Cultural assimilation can happen either spontaneously or forcibly, the latter when more dominant cultures use various means aimed at forced assimilation.[4]

Various types of assimilation, including forced cultural assimilation, are particularly relevant regarding Indigenous groups during colonialism taking place between the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. This type of assimilation included religious conversion, separation of families, changes of gender roles, division of property among foreign power, elimination of local economies, and lack of sustainable food supply. Whether via colonialism or within one nation, methods of forced assimilation are often unsustainable, leading to revolts and collapses of power to maintain control over cultural norms. Often, cultures that are forced into different cultural practices through forced cultural assimilation revert to their native practices and religions that differ from the forced cultural values of other dominant powers.[4] In addition throughout history, voluntary assimilation is often in response to pressure from a more predominant culture, and conformity is a solution for people to remain in safety. An example of voluntary cultural assimilation would be during the Spanish Inquisition, when Jews and Muslims accepted the Roman Catholic Church as their religion, but meanwhile, many people still privately practised their traditional religions. That type of assimilation is used to convince a dominant power that a culture has peacefully assimilated yet often voluntary assimilation does not mean the group fully conforms to the accepted cultural beliefs.[7]

The term "assimilation" is often used about not only indigenous groups but also immigrants settled in a new land. A new culture and new attitudes toward the original culture are obtained through contact and communication. Assimilation assumes that a relatively-tenuous culture gets to be united into one unified culture. That process happens through contact and accommodation between each culture. The current definition of assimilation is usually used to refer to immigrants, but in multiculturalism, cultural assimilation can happen all over the world and within varying social contexts and is not limited to specific areas.

Immigrant assimilation

[edit]

Social scientists rely on four primary benchmarks to assess immigrant assimilation: socioeconomic status, geographic distribution, second language attainment, and intermarriage.[14] William A.V. Clark defines immigrant assimilation in the United States as "a way of understanding the social dynamics of American society and that it is the process that occurs spontaneously and often unintended in the course of interaction between majority and minority groups."[15]

Studies have also noted the positive effects of immigrant assimilation. A study by Bleakley and Chin (2010) found that people who arrived in the US at or before the age of nine from non-English speaking countries tend to speak English at a similar level as those from English-speaking countries. Conversely, those who arrived after nine from non–English speaking countries have much lower speaking proficiency, which increases linearly with age at arrival. The study also noted sociocultural impacts, such as those with better English skills are less likely to be currently married, more likely to divorce, have fewer children, and have spouses closer to their age. Learning to speak English well is estimated to improve income by over 33 percent.[16] A 2014 study done by Verkuyten found that immigrant children who adapt through integration or assimilation are received more positively by their peers than those who adapt through marginalization or separation.

Perspective of dominant culture

[edit]
Main article: Dominant culture

There has been little to no existing research or evidence that demonstrates whether and how immigrant's mobility gains—assimilating to a dominant country such as language ability, socioeconomic status etc.— causes changes in the perception of those who were born in the dominant country. This essential type of research provides information on how immigrants are accepted into dominant countries. In an article by Ariela Schachter, titled "From "different" to "similar": an experimental approach to understanding assimilation", a survey was taken of white American citizens to view their perception of immigrants who now resided in the United States.[17] The survey indicated the whites tolerated immigrants in their home country. White natives are open to having "structural" relation with the immigrants-origin individuals, for instance, friends and neighbors; however, this was with the exception of black immigrants and natives and undocumented immigrants.[17] However, at the same time, white Americans viewed all non-white Americans, regardless of legal status, as dissimilar.

A similar journal by Jens Hainmueller and Daniel J. Hopkins titled "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants" confirmed similar attitudes towards immigrants.[18] The researchers used an experiment to reach their goal which was to test nine theoretical relevant attributes of hypothetical immigrants. Asking a population-based sample of U.S. citizens to decide between pairs of immigrants applying for admission to the United States, the U.S. citizen would see an application with information for two immigrants including notes about their education status, country, origin, and other attributes. The results showed Americans viewed educated immigrants in high-status jobs favourably, whereas they view the following groups unfavourably: those who lack plans to work, those who entered without authorization, those who are not fluent in English and those of Iraqi descent.

Adaptation to new country

[edit]

As the number of international students entering the US has increased, so has the number of international students in US colleges and universities. The adaptation of these newcomers is important in cross-cultural research. In the study "Cross-Cultural Adaptation of International College Student in the United States" by Yikang Wang, the goal was to examine how the psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of international college students varied over time.[19] The survey contained a sample of 169 international students attending a coeducational public university. The two subtypes of adaptation: psychological and socio-cultural were examined. Psychological adaptation refers to "feelings of well-being or satisfaction during cross-cultural transitions;"[20] while socio-cultural refers to the ability to fit into the new culture.[20] The results for both graduate and undergraduate students show both satisfaction and socio-cultural skills changed over time. Psychological adaptation had the most significant change for a student who has resided in the US for at least 24 months while socio-cultural adaptation steadily increased over time. It can be concluded that eventually over time, the minority group will shed some of their culture's characteristic when in a new country and incorporate new culture qualities. Also, it was confirmed that more time spent in a new country would result in becoming more accustomed to the dominant countries' characteristics.

Figure 2 demonstrates as the length of time resided in the United States increase—the dominant country, the life satisfaction and socio-cultural skill increase as well—positive correlation.[19]

In turn, research by Caligiuri's group, published in 2020, shows that one semester of classroom experiential activities designed to foster international and domestic student social interaction serve to foster international students’ sense of belonging and social support.[21]

In a study by Viola Angelini, "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?", the theory of assimilation as having benefits for well-being.[22] The goal of this study was to assess the difference between cultural assimilation and the subjective well-being of immigrants. The journal included a study that examined a "direct measure of assimilation with a host culture and immigrants' subjective well-being."[22] Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, it was concluded that there was a positive correlation between cultural assimilation and an immigrant's life's satisfaction/wellbeing even after discarding factors such as employment status, wages, etc. "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?" also confirms "association with life satisfaction is stronger for established immigrants than for recent ones."[22] It was found that the more immigrants that identified with the German culture and who spoke the fluent national language—dominant country language, the more they reported to be satisfied with their lives. Life satisfaction rates were higher for those who had assimilated to the dominant country than those who had not assimilated since those who did incorporate the dominant language, religion, psychological aspects, etc.

Non-indigenous assimilation

[edit]

In the study "Examination of cultural shock, intercultural sensitivity and willingness to adopt" by Clare D’Souza, the study uses a diary method to analyze the data collected.[23] The study involved students undergoing a study abroad tour. The results show that negative intercultural sensitivity is much greater in participants who experience culture shock.[23] Those who experience culture shock have emotional expressions and responses of hostility, anger, negativity, anxiety, frustration, isolation, and regression. Also, for one who has traveled to the country before permanently moving, they would have predetermined beliefs about the culture and their status within the country. The emotional expression for this individual includes excitement, happiness, eagerness, and euphoria.

Another article titled "International Students from Melbourne Describing Their Cross-Cultural Transitions Experiences: Culture Shock, Social Interaction, and Friendship Development" by Nish Belford focuses on cultural shock.[24] Belford interviewed international students to explore their experience after living and studying in Melbourne, Australia. The data collected were narratives from the students that focused on variables such as "cultural similarity, intercultural communication competence, intercultural friendship, and relational identity to influence their experiences."[24]

United States

[edit]
Further information: Americanization (immigration)

Between 1880 and 1920, the United States took in roughly 24 million immigrants.[14] This increase in immigration can be attributed to many historical changes. The beginning of the 21st century has also marked a massive era of immigration, and sociologists are once again trying to make sense of the impacts that immigration has on society and the immigrants themselves.[14]

Assimilation had various meanings in American sociology. Henry Pratt Fairchild associates American assimilation with Americanization or the "melting pot" theory. Some scholars also believed that assimilation and acculturation were synonymous. According to a common point of view, assimilation is a "process of interpretation and fusion" from another group or person. That may include memories, behaviors, and sentiments. By sharing their experiences and histories, they blend into the common cultural life.[25] A related theory is structural pluralism, proposed by American sociologist Milton Gordon. It describes the American situation wherein, despite the cultural assimilation of ethnic groups into mainstream American society, they maintained structural separation.[26] Gordon maintained that there is limited integration of the immigrants into American social institutions such as educational, occupational, political, and social cliques.[2]

During the Colonial Period from 1607 to 1776, individuals immigrated to the British colonies on two very different paths—voluntary and forced migration. Those who migrated to the colonies on their own volition were drawn by the allure of cheap land, high wages, and the freedom of conscience in British North America.[27] On the latter half, the largest population of displaced people to the colonies was African slaves.[28] Slavery was different from the other forced migrations as, unlike in the case of convicts, there was no possibility of earning freedom, although some slaves were manumitted in the centuries before the American Civil War.[29] The long history of immigration in the established gateways means that the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies in the traditional gateways is more structured or established, but on the other hand, the new gateways do not have much immigration history and so the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies are less defined, and immigrants may have more influence to define their position. Secondly, the size of the new gateways may influence immigrant assimilation. Having a smaller gateway may affect the level of racial segregation among immigrants and native-born people. Thirdly, the difference in institutional arrangements may influence immigrant assimilation. Unlike new gateways, traditional gateways have many institutions set up to help immigrants, such as legal aid, bureaus, and social organizations. Finally, Waters and Jimenez have only speculated that those differences may influence immigrant assimilation and the way researchers should assess immigrant assimilation.[14]

Furthermore, the advancement and integration of immigrants into the United States has accounted for 29% of U.S. population growth since 2000.[30] Recent arrival of immigrants to the United States has been examined closely over the last two decades. The results show the driving factors for immigration, including citizenship, homeownership, English language proficiency, job status, and earning a better income.[31]

Canada

[edit]

Canada's multicultural history dates back to the period European colonization from the 16th to 19th centuries, with waves of ethnic European emigration to the region. In the 20th century, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese were the largest immigrant groups.[32]

20th century–present: Shift from assimilation to integration

[edit]

Canada remains one of the largest immigrant populations in the world. The 2016 census recorded 7.5 million documented immigrants, representing a fifth of the country's population.[33] Focus has shifted from a rhetoric of cultural assimilation to cultural integration.[34] In contrast to assimilationism, integration aims to preserve the roots of a minority society while still allowing for smooth coexistence with the dominant culture.[32]

Indigenous assimilation

[edit]

Australia

[edit]
Further information: Aboriginal Australians, New Deal for Aborigines, and Stolen Generations

Legislation applying the policy of "protection" over Aboriginal Australians (separating them from white society[35]) was adopted in some states and territories of Australia when they were still colonies, before the federation of Australia: in the Victoria in 1867, Western Australia in 1886, and Queensland in 1897. After federation, New South Wales crafted their policy in 1909, South Australia and the Northern Territory (which was under the control and of South Australia at the time) in 1910–11. Mission stations missions and Government-run Aboriginal reserves were created, and Aboriginal people moved onto them. Legislation restricted their movement, prohibited alcohol use and regulated employment. The policies were reinforced in the first half of the 20th century (when it was realized that Aboriginal people would not die out or be fully absorbed in white society[35]) such as in the provisions of the Welfare Ordinance 1953, in which Aboriginal people were made wards of the state. "Part-Aboriginal" (known as half-caste) children were forcibly removed from their parents in order to educate them in European ways; the girls were often trained to be domestic servants.[36] The protectionist policies were discontinued, and assimilationist policies took over. These proposed that "full-blood" Indigenous Australians should be allowed to “die out”, while "half-castes" were encouraged to assimilate into the white community. Indigenous people were regarded as inferior to white people by these policies, and often experienced discrimination in the predominantly white towns after having to move to seek work.[35][37]

Between 1910 and 1970, several generations of Indigenous children were removed from their parents, and have become known as the Stolen Generations. The policy has done lasting damage to individuals, family and Indigenous culture.[35]

The New Deal for Aborigines announced in 1939 marked the end of official policies based around "biological absorption" or "elimination" of Indigenous peoples, replaced with cultural assimilation as a prerequisite for civil rights. The 1961 Native Welfare Conference in Canberra, Australian federal and state government ministers formulated an official definition of "assimilation" of Indigenous Australians for government contexts. The Menzies Government's Federal Territories Minister Paul Hasluck informed the House of Representatives in April 1961 that:[38][excessive quote]

The policy of assimilation means in the view of all Australian governments that all aborigines and part-aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians. Thus, any special measures taken for aborigines and part-aborigines are regarded as temporary measures not based on colour but intended to meet their need for special care and assistance to protect them from any ill effects of sudden change and to assist them to make the transition from one stage to another in such a way as will be favourable to their future social, economic and political advancement.

After leading the successful 1967 referendum that removed discriminatory clauses of the Australian Constitution, Liberal Prime Minister Harold Holt explained his government's policy on assimilation thus:

The word 'assimilation' is often misunderstood. There is nothing mandatory or arbitrary about it and it does not mean inter-breeding with the avowed objective of eventually eliminating the Aboriginal physical features or Aboriginal culture. Assimilation means that the Aborigines can be similar to other citizens, not of course in looks, but with regard to all the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.

— Prime Minister Harold Holt, Sept, 1967[39]

Holt's successor John Gorton endorsed a policy of "advancement" of Aboriginal people by means of "the assimilation of Aboriginal Australians as fully effective members of a single Australian society", and applauded "efforts being made by the States to involve Aboriginals themselves in the administration of their own affairs and in the exercise of proper authority among their own people," promising to emulate them at a Federal level. He outlined his Government's position thus:[40]

In other words, without destroying Aboriginal culture, we want to help our Aboriginals to become an integral part of the rest of the Australian people, and we want the Aboriginals themselves to have a voice in the pace at which this process occurs. We will measure policy proposals against this objective, and will wish to avoid measures which are likely to set Aboriginal citizens permanently apart from other Australians through having their development based upon separate or different standards [...] However, we recognise that... many Aboriginal Australians are subject to special handicaps which impede their advancement. We are ready, therefore, to support additional action designed to help Aboriginals overcome these handicaps in the transitional phase.

— Prime Minister John Gorton, 12 July 1968

Government policies of 'assimilation' fell out of favour in Australia from the 1970s, with campaigners such as Australia's first Aboriginal Senator Neville Bonner favouring policies of 'integration' and 'self determination', and the Whitlam Labor and Fraser Liberal Governments promoting Land Rights legislation.

Brazil

[edit]

In January 2019, the newly elected Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro stripped the Indigenous Affairs Agency FUNAI of the responsibility to identify and demarcate Indigenous lands. He argued that those territories have very tiny isolated populations and proposed to integrate them into the larger Brazilian society.[41] According to the Survival International, "Taking responsibility for Indigenous land demarcation away from FUNAI, the Indian affairs department, and giving it to the Agriculture Ministry is virtually a declaration of open warfare against Brazil's tribal peoples."[42]

Canada 1800s–1996: Forced assimilation

[edit]

During the 19th and 20th centuries, and continuing until 1996, when the last Canadian Indian residential school was closed, the Canadian government, aided by Christian Churches, began an assimilationist campaign to forcibly assimilate Indigenous peoples in Canada. The government consolidated power over Indigenous land through treaties and the use of force, eventually isolating most Indigenous peoples to reserves. Marriage practices and spiritual ceremonies were banned, and spiritual leaders were imprisoned. Additionally, the Canadian government instituted an extensive residential school system to assimilate children. Indigenous children were separated from their families and no longer permitted to express their culture at these new schools. They were not allowed to speak their language or practice their own traditions without receiving punishment. There were many cases of violence and sexual abuse committed by the Christian church. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that this effort amounted to cultural genocide. The schools actively worked to alienate children from their cultural roots. Students were prohibited from speaking their native languages, were regularly abused, and were arranged marriages by the government after their graduation. The explicit goal of the Canadian government, through the Catholic and Anglican churches, was to completely assimilate Indigenous peoples into broader Canadian society and destroy all traces of their native history.[43]

Croatia and Transylvania

[edit]

During Croatia's personal union with Hungary, ethnic Croatians were pressured to abandon their traditional customs in favor of adopting elements of Hungarian culture, such as Catholicism and the Latin alphabet. Because of this, elements of Hungarian culture were considered part of Croatian culture, and can still be seen in modern Croatian culture.[44]

Throughout the Kingdom of Hungary, many citizens, primarily those who belonged to minority groups, were forced to convert to Catholicism. The forced conversion policy was harshest in Croatia and Transylvania, where civilians could be sent to prison for refusing to convert.[45] Romanian cultural anthropologist Ioan Lupaș claims that between 1002, when Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary, to 1300, approximately 200,000 non-Hungarians living in Transylvania were jailed for resisting Catholic conversion, and about 50,000 of them died in prison.[46]

Mexico and Peru

[edit]

A major contributor to cultural assimilation in South America began during exploration and colonialism that often is thought by Bartolomé de Las Casas to begin in 1492 when Europeans began to explore the Atlantic in search of "the Indies", leading to the discovery of the Americas. Europe remained dominant over the Americas' Indigenous populations as resources such as labor, natural resources i.e. lumber, copper, gold, silver, and agricultural products flooded into Europe, yet these gains were one-sided, as Indigenous groups did not benefit from trade deals with colonial powers.[47] In addition to this, colonial metropoles such as Portugal and Spain required that colonies in South America assimilate to European customs – such as following the Holy Roman Catholic Church, acceptance of Spanish or Portuguese over Indigenous languages and accepting European-style government.[48]

Through forceful assimilationist policies, colonial powers such as Spain used methods of violence to assert cultural dominance over Indigenous populations.[49] One example occurred in 1519 when the Spanish explorer Hernán Cortés reached Tenochtitlán – the original capital of the Aztec Empire in Mexico.[50] After discovering that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, Cortés killed high-ranked Aztecs and held Moctezuma II, the Aztec ruler, captive. Shortly after, Cortés began creating alliances to resume power in Tenochtitlán and renamed it Mexico City. Without taking away power through murder and spread of infectious diseases the Spanish conquistadores (relatively small in number) would not have been able to take over Mexico and convert many people to Catholicism and slavery. While Spaniards influenced linguistic and religious cultural assimilation among Indigenous peoples in South America during colonialism, many Indigenous languages such as the Incan language Quechua are still used in places such as Peru to this day by at least 4 million people.

New Zealand

[edit]

In the course of the colonization of New Zealand from the late-18th century onwards, assimilation of the indigenous Maori population to the culture of incoming European visitors and settlers at first occurred spontaneously. Genetic assimilation commenced early and continued – the 1961 New Zealand census classified only 62.2% of Māori as "full-blood Maoris".[51] (Compare Pākehā Māori.) Linguistic assimilation also occurred early and ongoingly: European settler populations adopted and adapted Māori words, while European languages affected Māori vocabulary (and possibly phonology).[52]

In the 19th century colonial governments de facto encouraged assimilationist policies;[53] by the late-20th century, policies favored bicultural development.[54] Māori readily and early adopted some aspects of European-borne material culture (metals,[55] muskets,[56] potatoes[57]) relatively rapidly. Imported ideas – such as writing,[58] Christianity,[59] monarchy, sectarianism, everyday European-style clothing,[60] or disapproval of slavery[61] – spread more slowly. Later developments (socialism,[62] anti-colonialist theory,[63] New Age ideas[64]) have proven more internationally mobile. One long-standing view presents Māori communalism as unassimilated with European-style individualism.[65]

United States

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Cultural assimilation of Native Americans.[edit]
A series of efforts were made by the United States to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream European–American culture between the years of 1790 and the 1960s.[66][67] George Washington and Henry Knox were first to propose, in the American context, the cultural assimilation of Native Americans.[68] They formulated a policy to encourage the so-called "civilizing process".[67] With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.

See also

[edit]

Culture-specific:

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cultural assimilation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cultural assimilation is the process by which individuals or groups from a minority or immigrant background adopt the cultural practices, values, , and social behaviors of the dominant society, often leading to the erosion of distinct elements of their heritage culture over time. This adaptation typically unfolds gradually, influenced by factors such as intermarriage, , economic incentives, and social interactions, and is distinct from mere coexistence by involving substantive convergence toward host society norms. In empirical contexts like the , historical data reveal that assimilation manifests in observable shifts, such as the alignment of naming patterns between immigrant descendants and natives, signaling deeper cultural integration. The concept encompasses multiple dimensions, including cultural (e.g., and value alignment), structural (e.g., access to social networks and institutions), and socioeconomic integration, with generational progression often accelerating the process among second- and third-generation immigrants. Longitudinal studies demonstrate that higher degrees of assimilation correlate with enhanced , including reduced rates, improved educational outcomes, and greater labor market participation, as immigrants and their offspring close gaps with the native population. Conversely, incomplete assimilation has been linked to persistent ethnic enclaves and suboptimal , underscoring its role as a causal driver of upward mobility in host societies. Debates surrounding cultural assimilation often contrast it with , where the latter emphasizes preservation of distinct cultural identities alongside tolerance rather than convergence; evidence from diverse policy contexts suggests assimilation fosters stronger social cohesion and mutual understanding, while can perpetuate divisions if it discourages to shared norms. , historically imposed through policies like mandates or residential schooling, has yielded mixed results, with some instances accelerating integration but others inflicting psychological harm, though voluntary assimilation driven by self-interest tends to produce more sustainable outcomes. Overall, assimilation remains a fundamental dynamic in pluralistic societies, empirically tied to long-term stability and when aligned with host cultural prerequisites.

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Core Definition

Cultural assimilation refers to the process in which individuals or groups from a subordinate or immigrant culture adopt the dominant 's norms, values, behaviors, and institutions, often leading to the or replacement of their heritage cultural elements. This adoption typically manifests as the supplanting of original practices with those of the host society, rather than mere superficial or mutual exchange. Sociologists distinguish it from broader , which can involve bidirectional influences, by emphasizing assimilation's directional emphasis on to the prevailing cultural framework, driven by social pressures or incentives within the receiving society. Key indicators of cultural assimilation include shifts in , where immigrants and their descendants increasingly use the host language as their primary —evidenced, for instance, by U.S. data showing that by the third generation, over 90% of descendants of non-English-speaking immigrants speak English fluently at home. Other markers encompass alignment in social customs, such as dietary preferences, holiday observances, and interpersonal etiquette, as well as attitudinal changes toward , , or gender roles prevalent in the dominant culture. Empirical studies, such as those tracking naming practices, reveal assimilation through convergence: immigrant families in the U.S. increasingly select names common among natives, with this trend accelerating across generations and correlating with socioeconomic mobility. Theoretically rooted in early 20th-century Chicago School sociology, the concept posits assimilation as a natural outcome of prolonged contact in pluralistic societies, where ecological competition and social interaction compel cultural convergence, though outcomes vary by group size, entry conditions, and policy environments. While some frameworks, like Milton Gordon's 1964 model, frame cultural assimilation as an initial stage preceding structural integration (e.g., access to institutions), it fundamentally entails the minority group's internalization of the majority's worldview to achieve acceptance. This process can be partial or complete, but full assimilation historically correlates with reduced ethnic boundaries, as seen in European immigrant waves to the U.S. between 1880 and 1920, where initial cultural retention gave way to homogeneity by mid-century.

Theoretical Models of Assimilation

The straight-line model of assimilation, originating from of in the early , posits that immigrant groups progressively integrate into the host society over successive generations through a unidirectional process of cultural, economic, and . Developed by in 1928 and elaborated by Milton Gordon in 1964, this theory describes assimilation as involving stages such as contact, , accommodation, and eventual fusion, where ethnic distinctions fade as groups adopt the dominant culture's language, norms, and institutions. Empirical support for this model draws from patterns observed among European immigrants to the between 1880 and 1920, where second- and third-generation descendants showed increasing socioeconomic parity with natives, including higher English proficiency and intermarriage rates. However, the model's assumption of inevitable homogenization has faced criticism for overlooking persistent structural barriers, particularly for non-European groups arriving after the 1965 Immigration Act, where and enclave economies can impede linear progress. In response to these limitations, the segmented assimilation theory, proposed by Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou in 1993, argues that second-generation immigrants follow divergent trajectories shaped by selective acculturation, influenced by parental socioeconomic status, community resources, and exposure to inner-city underclass subcultures. This framework identifies three primary paths: consonant assimilation, where strong co-ethnic ties support upward mobility while adopting host values; selective acculturation, preserving ethnicity alongside selective adoption of host traits for economic success; and dissonant or downward assimilation, where rapid cultural adoption without economic buffers leads to poverty, crime, and cultural marginalization, as seen in some Latino and West Indian youth in U.S. urban areas during the 1980s and 1990s. Longitudinal data from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (1992–2003) substantiate segmented patterns, showing that children of low-skilled immigrants in high-poverty neighborhoods experienced 20–30% higher rates of downward mobility compared to those in middle-class enclaves, challenging the universality of straight-line convergence. Critics of segmented assimilation, including Richard Alba and Victor Nee in 2003, contend it overemphasizes barriers while underplaying institutional opportunities that enable boundary-blurring and economic incorporation even for disadvantaged groups, as evidenced by rising interethnic marriages and educational attainment among post-1980 cohorts. The metaphor, popularized in Israel Zangwill's 1908 play and associated with early 20th-century American ideals, envisions assimilation as a fusion of diverse cultures into a singular, homogeneous , prioritizing cultural uniformity for social cohesion. In contrast, the salad bowl or mosaic model, gaining prominence in multicultural policy discussions from the 1970s onward, particularly in under Pierre Trudeau's 1971 framework, emphasizes the coexistence of distinct cultural identities within a shared civic framework, allowing retention of heritage languages and traditions without full cultural erasure. Empirical analyses indicate that melting pot dynamics historically facilitated faster for European migrants, with U.S. data from 1940–1970 showing 70–80% of third-generation Italian and identifying solely as "American," correlating with median income parity. However, for contemporary non-Western immigrants, salad bowl approaches correlate with sustained ethnic entrepreneurship but slower civic assimilation, as 2019 Pew Research data reveal 40% of U.S.-born children of Mexican immigrants retaining primary Spanish fluency, potentially hindering broader formation. These models underscore causal factors like policy incentives and labor in determining assimilation paths, with straight-line and melting pot variants empirically stronger in low-immigration, high-enforcement contexts.

Historical Context

Pre-Modern and Early Modern Examples

In the Hellenistic period following Alexander the Great's death in 323 BCE, cultural assimilation manifested as Hellenization, whereby Greek language, art, philosophy, and urban planning spread across conquered territories from Egypt to Bactria. Alexander founded over 70 cities, such as Alexandria in Egypt, which served as centers for Greek settlers and facilitated the adoption of Koine Greek as a lingua franca among elites and traders; local populations gradually incorporated Greek educational institutions like gymnasia and theaters, blending them with indigenous practices, as evidenced by hybrid artifacts in Ai Khanoum. This process was driven by incentives for local rulers to align with Hellenistic monarchs for political legitimacy, resulting in a fused culture that persisted until Roman conquests, though rural areas retained stronger native traditions. The exemplified assimilation through , a decentralized integration of provincial peoples into Roman civic life from the BCE onward. Conquered elites were co-opted via grants, in legions, and projects like aqueducts and fora, which encouraged adoption of Latin, , and pagan cults equated with local deities; by 212 CE, Emperor Caracalla's extended to nearly all free inhabitants, accelerating linguistic and legal uniformity across , , and . Archaeological evidence, including epigraphic inscriptions shifting from local scripts to Latin, indicates voluntary uptake among upwardly mobile groups for economic and social advancement, though enforcement varied and resistance occurred in peripheral regions like . During the early Islamic caliphates under the (632–661 CE) and Umayyad (661–750 CE) dynasties, assimilation followed rapid conquests spanning Persia to Iberia, where non-Arab populations integrated via the system, paying tax in exchange for protection and autonomy, incentivizing for tax relief and full societal participation. emerged as the administrative and Quranic language, leading to in urban centers like and , with converts adopting Islamic and customs; historical records show gradual majoritization, as in where Coptic speakers declined from majority to minority by the , primarily through economic pressures rather than mass coercion. In early modern French colonies in during the , royal policies under promoted assimilation of through intermarriage, Catholic education, and resettlement into seigneurial systems modeled on French villages, aiming to forge a unified colonial identity. Jesuit missions, such as those among the Huron from 1634, baptized thousands and taught and , yielding limited success with groups like the Wendat, where and warfare disrupted deeper integration; by 1663, when became a royal province, only about 4,000 French settlers contrasted with larger native populations, highlighting assimilation's uneven progress amid resistance and demographic imbalances.

Emergence of Modern Assimilation Policies

The emergence of modern assimilation policies coincided with the consolidation of nation-states and imperial expansion in the late 18th and 19th centuries, as governments pursued cultural uniformity to underpin , administrative efficiency, and territorial control. In , foundational elements appeared during the Revolutionary era, with colonial administration from the promoting the adoption of , customs, and legal norms among indigenous populations to transform them into republican subjects. This approach, codified in the Constitution's treatment of colonies as integral extensions of the , emphasized elite education in French institutions to foster loyalty and cultural alignment, influencing subsequent Third Republic policies in and . In the United States, early modern assimilation targeted Native American tribes amid westward expansion, exemplified by the Dawes Severalty Act of February 8, 1887, which allotted reservation lands to individuals in 160-acre parcels to dismantle communal structures and encourage ownership, farming, and integration into market economies. Complementing this, the federal government established Indian boarding schools starting in 1879, such as the , where over 10,000 Native children were enrolled by 1900 to eradicate tribal languages, religions, and attire through mandatory English instruction, vocational training, and separation from families—embodying the principle that "kill the Indian, save the man." These measures reflected a causal belief that cultural dissolution would enable economic self-sufficiency and reduce conflict costs, though they accelerated land loss, with Native holdings dropping from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48 million by 1934. For mass immigration from , assimilation policies formalized in the early amid anxieties over social cohesion during industrialization and . The movement, organized from the 1910s, deployed federal, state, and private initiatives to instruct over 2 million immigrants in English, U.S. history, and industrial work norms, peaking with the U.S. Bureau of Education's Division of Immigrant Education in 1917, which served 700,000 adults by 1919 through night schools and citizenship classes. Legislation like the Naturalization Act of 1906 further reinforced this by requiring basic English and knowledge for , aiming to mitigate ethnic enclaves and labor unrest observed in the late 19th-century influx of 12 million immigrants. Similar state-driven efforts emerged in and , where policies from the 1890s targeted both indigenous populations and European settlers to align with Anglo-dominant norms, underscoring assimilation's role in stabilizing settler societies.

Mechanisms of Assimilation

Voluntary Processes

Voluntary processes of cultural assimilation involve individuals or groups adopting elements of the host society's , norms, , and social practices through self-motivated choices, often incentivized by opportunities for , , and family advancement rather than external compulsion. These processes typically manifest in behaviors such as acquiring proficiency in the host to access and , selecting native-sounding names for children to reduce perceived foreignness, and engaging in intermarriage, which facilitates transmission of host cultural values across generations. Empirical analyses indicate that such voluntary adoption correlates with tangible benefits, including higher and earnings, as native-aligned naming practices alone have been linked to improved labor market outcomes in historical U.S. data. Historical examples from U.S. during the Age of (1850–1913) demonstrate the pace and drivers of voluntary assimilation. Immigrants reduced the cultural gap in child-naming practices—measured by a foreignness index comparing name frequencies between immigrant and native groups—by approximately 50% after 20 years in the country, with Scandinavians (from , , and ) exhibiting the fastest rates due to geographic proximity in cultural origins and strong incentives to integrate for agricultural and industrial opportunities. By 1930, a majority of these immigrants had pursued and achieved proficiency voluntarily, reflecting adaptation to host institutions without mandated policies. Intermarriage rates further underscored this dynamic, reaching 33% among first-generation unmarried immigrants and exceeding 50% in , promoting deeper cultural convergence through familial ties. Contemporary evidence reveals comparable voluntary assimilation trajectories, unaffected by differences in literacy or education levels between past and present cohorts. In birth records from 1989 to 2015, immigrants closed about half the initial naming gap (24 foreignness index points at arrival) within 20 years, with groups like —starting from higher foreignness—showing accelerated equivalent to 10 index points of reduction, driven by prolonged residence and intent to remain. These patterns hold across origins, suggesting that voluntary mechanisms, such as workplace interactions and schooling, sustain assimilation independently of formal interventions, yielding second-generation outcomes aligned with native norms in use and cultural preferences. Unlike coerced approaches, which historical cases like targeted government programs for German-Americans in the early showed could provoke backlash and hinder long-term integration, voluntary processes foster sustainable adoption by aligning individual incentives with host society demands.

Coerced and Structural Mechanisms

Coerced mechanisms of cultural assimilation involve direct state or institutional interventions that compel individuals or groups to abandon native cultural practices in favor of the dominant culture's norms, often through legal mandates, physical separation, or punitive measures. , the federal government's Indian boarding school system, initiated with the in 1879, forcibly removed an estimated 100,000 Native American children from their families between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, prohibiting native languages, traditional clothing, and spiritual practices while enforcing English-only instruction and Western vocational training. Similarly, Canada's residential school program, operating from the 1880s until 1996 under government and church auspices, separated over 150,000 Indigenous children, aiming to "kill the Indian in him, and save the man" through assimilation, resulting in widespread documented physical and cultural suppression. These policies exemplified coercive tactics, including for speaking indigenous languages and mandatory adoption of European names, which empirical studies link to intergenerational trauma and elevated rates of adult health issues among survivors, such as a 2023 analysis showing former attendees 20-30% more likely to report poor physical health. During the U.S. Allotment and Assimilation Era (1887-1934), the fragmented tribal lands into individual allotments, conditioning citizenship and land rights on cultural , such as abandoning communal practices for ownership, which reduced Native land holdings by two-thirds and accelerated assimilation pressures. In historical contexts like the Roman Empire's provincial , coerced assimilation manifested through military and incentives tied to adopting Latin and Roman customs, though modern empirical parallels emphasize the inefficiencies of force; a 2025 study on post-World War I European assimilation policies found short-term educational declines of 10-15% in affected regions, with persistent negative effects on local formation. Structural mechanisms operate indirectly through societal institutions, economic incentives, and legal frameworks that systematically disadvantage non-conforming cultures, fostering assimilation via necessity rather than overt compulsion. In , the principle of laïcité (state secularism), enshrined in the 1905 law separating church and state and reinforced in public education, mandates neutral attire in schools, effectively pressuring immigrant Muslim communities to prioritize French republican values over visible religious expressions, as seen in the 2004 ban on conspicuous religious symbols like hijabs, which affected an estimated 10-12% of female students from North African backgrounds. Empirical data from French integration policies (2000-2020) indicate that such structural requirements, including mandatory civic courses emphasizing laïcité, correlate with higher rates among compliant immigrants but also with persistent socioeconomic segregation, where non-assimilating groups face 15-20% employment gaps. Immigration systems worldwide embed structural assimilation via prerequisites like language proficiency tests for citizenship—e.g., the U.S. naturalization process requiring demonstrated English competency since 1952, which a Stanford analysis shows accelerated second-generation name Americanization and cultural convergence among European immigrants by 20-30% per generation. Economic structures, such as labor markets favoring host-language skills, create de facto coercion; Gordon's assimilation model posits that entry into dominant social institutions (structural integration) follows cultural adaptation, with evidence from U.S. immigrant cohorts (1900-1940) revealing that occupational mobility doubled for those entering core networks, though this often entailed shedding ethnic enclaves. Critics note that while these mechanisms promote measurable integration metrics like intermarriage rates (rising from 5% to 25% across U.S. immigrant generations), they can perpetuate inequality if host norms embed biases, as segmented assimilation theory argues for differential outcomes based on receiving context.

Empirical Evidence on Outcomes

Economic and Educational Integration

Cultural assimilation facilitates by enabling immigrants to acquire host-country-specific , such as and occupational norms, which narrows initial gaps with natives over time. Longitudinal data from the New Immigrant Survey indicate that immigrants reduce their earnings disparity with comparable natives by approximately 10-20% within the first decade post-arrival, with faster convergence among those exhibiting higher cultural adaptation, including English proficiency in the U.S. context. Similarly, analysis of German labor market data shows that greater cultural assimilation correlates with accelerated growth, as immigrants from culturally distant origins who adapt more rapidly experience up to 5-7% higher annual increases compared to less assimilated peers. These patterns hold historically; during the Age of Mass Migration (1850-1913), culturally assimilating immigrants saw their children's labor market outcomes improve by 15-25% relative to non-assimilators, driven by adoption of local economic practices. Educational integration benefits from assimilation through enhanced access to host- instruction and alignment with prevailing academic norms, leading to improved attainment among second-generation immigrants. Across countries, second-generation individuals average 1.3 additional years of schooling beyond their parents, with this gain amplified in contexts of stronger assimilation, such as early exposure to host-country schools before age 12, which boosts performance by 0.5-1 standard deviation in standardized tests. In the U.S., assimilated second-generation youth demonstrate higher high school completion rates (85-90% vs. 70-75% for less integrated groups) and college enrollment, positively linked to parental cultural adaptation and reduced reliance. However, school ethnic composition moderates outcomes; second-generation students in diverse but low-assimilation environments face 10-15% lower achievement gains due to peer effects hindering and norm adoption. Empirical evidence underscores causal links: alone yields wage premiums of 10-15% for immigrants, as it enables better job matching and skill utilization, while unassimilated cultural barriers perpetuate and . Second-generation economic trajectories further reflect this, with assimilated cohorts achieving earnings parity or surplus relative to natives by mid-career, as seen in U.S. data spanning 1960-2020 cohorts. These integrations are not uniform; initial cultural distances (e.g., linguistic dissimilarity) delay progress, but policy-induced assimilation, like mandatory schooling, accelerates closure of gaps by 20-30%. Overall, assimilation's role in accumulation drives these outcomes, outweighing selection effects in peer-reviewed models.

Social Cohesion and Second-Generation Progress

Cultural assimilation contributes to enhanced social cohesion by diminishing ethnic segregation, which empirical studies associate with reduced interpersonal trust and community bonds. In diverse neighborhoods, higher levels of cultural homogeneity through assimilation correlate with increased social trust, as segregated enclaves foster isolation and lower among both immigrants and natives. For instance, assimilated minorities form fewer isolated communities, thereby mitigating intergroup conflict and promoting broader societal integration. Second-generation immigrants, born in the host society, often demonstrate significant progress in socioeconomic integration when parental assimilation encourages adoption of host norms, language proficiency, and educational priorities. In the United States, these individuals outperform their immigrant parents in key metrics: as of 2013 data analyzed by , second-generation adults achieved median household incomes 20-30% higher than first-generation counterparts and college completion rates exceeding native-born averages for certain groups, such as at 51% attainment versus 30% for U.S.-born whites. This upward mobility reflects selective assimilation, where exposure to host institutions yields better labor market entry and reduced workplace segregation compared to persistent ethnic clustering. However, outcomes vary by context; in , second-generation progress hinges on overcoming intergenerational transmission of origin-country identities, with stronger host identification linked to improved economic participation and reduced reliance on ethnic networks that can hinder mainstream integration. Segmented assimilation highlights that without robust assimilation—particularly in high-poverty or diverse urban settings—some second-generation cohorts face stalled advancement, perpetuating lower trust and cohesion akin to native underclasses. Conversely, environments favoring assimilation, such as those emphasizing shared civic values, elevate second-generation trust levels to match or exceed natives, fostering intergenerational transmission of . Empirical reviews across the Atlantic affirm that assimilation trajectories predict cohesion: U.S. second-generation groups exhibit declining cultural distinctions and rising intermarriage rates (e.g., 26% for Hispanics by early 2000s), correlating with stable or improving metrics, while European parallels show assimilation mitigating diversity's erosive effects on social bonds. These patterns underscore causal links between assimilation-driven convergence and reduced ethnic fractionalization, which otherwise depresses generalized trust by 5-10% in high-diversity locales per meta-analyses.

Benefits and Achievements

Contributions to Societal Stability and Prosperity

Cultural assimilation facilitates by enabling immigrants to adopt host-society skills, , and work norms, which narrow wage gaps with natives over time. Longitudinal analyses of U.S. and tax data from 1980 to 2015 show that immigrants typically double their incomes shortly after arrival, with further convergence through assimilation, as measured by English acquisition and occupational mobility. In historical contexts like the Age of Mass Migration (1850–1913), when foreign-born populations reached 15% of the U.S. total, assimilated immigrants achieved comparable skill-level employment to natives, contributing to overall labor market expansion and productivity gains. By reducing cultural distances, assimilation enhances social cohesion and trust, mitigating ethnic enclaves and inter-group conflicts that can undermine stability. Theoretical models calibrated to European Social Survey data indicate that inter-group contact drives assimilation, fostering coordination in public goods provision and lowering support for exclusionary policies. Empirically, U.S. immigrants exhibit 60% lower incarceration rates than natives as of 2020, a pattern persisting from onward and linked to cultural adoption that aligns behaviors with host legal and civic norms. Such outcomes promote societal stability by diminishing segregation risks and anti-immigrant backlash, as evidenced in historical data where assimilated groups showed higher intermarriage rates (>50% in by ) and uptake (>66% of immigrants applying by 1930). Long-term prosperity emerges through intergenerational effects, where assimilation transmits advantages to offspring, yielding higher and . Children of immigrants in the U.S. often surpass natives in upward mobility, advancing from the 25th to the 60th–65th by adulthood, based on records from 1880–1940 and recent cohorts. This process sustains societal prosperity by integrating diverse populations into a unified economic framework, as seen in correlations between Americanized names and improved schooling, earnings, and employment among early 20th-century cohorts. Overall, these dynamics underscore assimilation's role in converting immigrant inflows into net contributors to host-nation growth and order, countering fragmentation from unassimilated diversity.

Individual Advancement Through Adoption of Host Norms

Adoption of host norms, including , educational alignment, and behavioral adaptation to local labor market expectations, has been empirically linked to accelerated socioeconomic advancement for immigrants. Longitudinal analyses of U.S. immigrant earnings trajectories demonstrate that those who narrow cultural and skill gaps with natives experience faster wage growth, reducing initial earnings disparities by up to 20-30% within a decade of arrival, depending on entry cohort and origin . Similar patterns emerge in European contexts, where cultural assimilation—measured by adoption of host values and reduced cultural distance—correlates with 10-15% higher entry wages and sustained employment gains, as immigrants from more divergent backgrounds initially face penalties that diminish with normative convergence. Language acquisition stands out as a primary mechanism, with host-language enabling access to higher-skill occupations and broader networks. A study of childhood immigrants using 1990 U.S. data found that proficiency in English yields a 15-20% premium for non-native speakers, comparable to completing an additional year of schooling, with effects persisting across genders and origins. This advantage compounds through improved ; assimilated immigrants are more likely to pursue host-aligned credentials, leading to occupational mobility from low-wage manual roles to professional positions. In , for instance, reduced cultural barriers via normative adoption explain up to 12% of variance in long-term income trajectories, underscoring causal links between behavioral adaptation and market integration. Beyond economics, social assimilation—encompassing friendships, intermarriage, and civic participation aligned with host norms—enhances and stability. Empirical models from show socially integrated immigrants report 8-10% higher satisfaction in quality and security, alongside lower turnover rates, as alignment reduces and fosters trust-based opportunities. Historical evidence from U.S. waves (1850-1913) confirms this: European immigrants who adopted Anglo-American norms in dress, , and work achieved intergenerational mobility, with second-generation descendants matching or exceeding native by mid-century. Recent U.S. data reinforce that selective assimilation among resource-endowed immigrants yields superior outcomes in and homeownership, contrasting with enclave persistence that perpetuates lower mobility. These patterns hold across contexts but vary by host receptivity and immigrant selectivity; for example, tolerant or adaptable entrants from less rigid cultures integrate more deeply, gaining civic and economic edges through normative flexibility. While systemic barriers exist, first-principles analysis of labor markets indicates that voluntary norm adoption causally drives individual gains by signaling and compatibility, as evidenced by consistent cross-national premia for assimilated cohorts over non-adopters.

Criticisms and Negative Consequences

Cultural Erosion and Identity Loss

Cultural assimilation frequently results in the erosion of immigrants' and minorities' original cultural practices, languages, and traditions, particularly across generations. Second-generation immigrants often experience a rapid decline in proficiency in their parents' s, with studies showing that only a minority maintain despite initial bilingualism in immigrant households. This contributes to weakened intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge, as children prioritize host-society norms for social and , leading to diminished participation in traditional rituals and . Empirical data from longitudinal surveys indicate that heritage language loss correlates with fragile cultural identities, especially among descendants of European immigrants, where ancestral linguistic disconnection exacerbates feelings of cultural disconnection. Identity loss manifests psychologically through cultural bereavement, where migrants grieve the separation from their origin , resulting in issues and heightened vulnerability to disorders. Assimilation pressures, including reduced contact with heritage communities, predict increased depression and emotional distress, as individuals navigate conflicting cultural frameworks that foster identity confusion. For instance, second-generation report intergenerational cultural dissonance, which elevates parent-child conflict and problem behaviors, as traditional values clash with adopted host norms. In indigenous contexts, policies have compounded these effects, with historical land dispossession and suppression of practices leading to persistent identity threats and elevated rates of depressed affect linked to perceived cultural loss. While some assimilation models emphasize adaptive benefits, evidence underscores causal links between cultural dilution and long-term identity fragility, as retained distinctiveness—such as through naming practices or —slows but preserves heritage ties. Over-reliance on host cultural dominance without supportive mechanisms for balanced retention can thus perpetuate cycles of , where subsequent generations inherit attenuated cultural repertoires, hindering resilience against future stressors. This outcome is evident in surveys of North American indigenous adolescents, where historical assimilation correlates with ongoing psychological burdens from disrupted familial and cultural continuity.

Failures of Forced Policies and Ethical Violations

Forced assimilation policies, implemented by governments to compel minority groups to adopt dominant cultural norms, have frequently resulted in profound social disruptions, incomplete integration, and persistent ethnic tensions rather than the intended homogenization. In the United States, the Indian boarding school system, established in the late 19th century under the motto "Kill the Indian, save the man," involved the compulsory removal of Native American children from families to suppress indigenous languages, religions, and traditions through militaristic . Operating from the 1870s to the mid-20th century, these schools enrolled over 60,000 children across hundreds of institutions, yet failed to eradicate Native identities, instead fostering resistance movements and cultural revitalization efforts post-closure. A 2022 federal investigation documented at least 973 deaths from disease, accidents, and abuse, alongside widespread physical and sexual mistreatment, underscoring the policies' coercive inefficacy and human cost. Canada's residential school system, active from the 1880s until 1996 and involving church-run facilities funded by the government, sought to assimilate Indigenous children by prohibiting native languages and customs, affecting approximately 150,000 First Nations, , and youth. Despite aims of cultural replacement, the policy yielded intergenerational health declines, including elevated rates of chronic diseases, , and suicide among survivors and descendants, with studies linking maternal attendance to poorer child outcomes in education and . The 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report identified over 4,100 documented deaths, many unmarked, and classified the system as cultural due to deliberate family separations and identity erasure attempts. Ethically, these measures contravened emerging international norms on child rights, as evidenced by subsequent apologies and reparations exceeding CAD 5 billion, reflecting admissions of systemic including forced labor and . Australia's Stolen Generations policy, enacted through state legislation from to the , forcibly removed up to one in three Aboriginal and Islander children—estimated at 100,000—for placement in white institutions or families to foster assimilation into settler society. Evaluations reveal long-term failures, with removed individuals facing 1.7 times higher rates of incarceration, poorer health, and economic disadvantage compared to non-removed peers, perpetuating cycles of family breakdown and cultural disconnection without achieving broad societal integration. The 1997 Bringing Them Home inquiry documented ethical breaches, including and denial of , prompting a national apology and ongoing compensation schemes totaling over AUD 1 billion. These cases illustrate how coercive tactics, by prioritizing state objectives over voluntary adaptation, often amplified minority grievances and undermined social cohesion, as causal analyses attribute enduring disparities to trauma-induced distrust rather than inherent cultural incompatibilities.

Key Debates and Controversies

Assimilation Versus Multiculturalism

The debate between assimilation and revolves around contrasting strategies for managing in immigrant-receiving societies. Assimilation advocates the progressive adoption by immigrants of the host country's , values, and social norms to enable full societal participation and minimize divisions, often through policies like mandatory training and civic . , by contrast, emphasizes the preservation of immigrants' ancestral s via state accommodations such as funding for ethnic institutions and exemptions from certain norms, aiming to achieve equality by affirming group differences rather than converging on a common . This tension has shaped policy divergences, with assimilation viewed as prioritizing national unity and as safeguarding pluralism, though empirical outcomes often favor the former for long-term stability. Evidence from peer-reviewed research indicates that assimilation correlates with stronger social cohesion and reduced segregation risks. Culturally assimilated minorities exhibit lower tendencies to form isolated enclaves, which in turn decreases intergroup conflict and enhances overall societal trust. In workplace settings, assimilation-oriented approaches yield higher and retention for both immigrants and natives by fostering equality through shared norms, outperforming multiculturalism's focus on difference recognition, which can perpetuate divides. Historical analyses further show that assimilation drives intergenerational progress, as seen in U.S. immigrant cohorts where socioeconomic indicators align with natives over time, supporting economic and reduced . Multiculturalism has faced criticism for enabling parallel societies and hindering integration, as evidenced by policy reversals in . German Chancellor declared in October 2010 that had "utterly failed," citing persistent immigrant isolation despite diversity initiatives. British Prime Minister echoed this in February 2011, arguing state bred segregation and by avoiding demands for shared values. These assessments align with studies linking to elevated ethnic segregation and lower , contrasting with assimilation's role in mitigating anti-immigrant backlash through cultural convergence. While some defend for short-term inclusion, causal patterns reveal assimilation's superiority in yielding cohesive, prosperous outcomes, as unassimilated diversity correlates with trust erosion and policy backlogs in high-immigration contexts.

Role in Addressing Immigration Challenges

Cultural assimilation addresses key immigration challenges by fostering economic self-sufficiency and reducing reliance on public welfare systems among immigrant populations. Empirical analyses indicate that immigrants who acquire host-country and adopt prevailing work norms experience accelerated wage growth and higher rates, thereby alleviating fiscal burdens on receiving societies. For instance, , second-generation immigrants from assimilated families demonstrate labor market outcomes comparable to or exceeding native-born citizens, with English proficiency correlating to a 20-30% premium in earnings over non-proficient cohorts. Similarly, longitudinal data reveal that cultural adaptation diminishes intergenerational , as assimilated households invest more in and , countering the strains of rapid demographic inflows on . In terms of social cohesion, assimilation mitigates risks of ethnic enclavism and intergroup tensions that exacerbate immigration-related conflicts, such as spikes in unintegrated communities. on neighborhood dynamics shows that higher assimilation levels among immigrants—measured by intermarriage rates and cultural convergence—correlate with reduced involvement, aligning immigrant offending patterns with those of natives over time. In the U.S., immigrants overall exhibit incarceration rates no higher than natives, with assimilation accelerating convergence to native lows, particularly for economic and cultural adapters rather than those in segmented multicultural settings. This contrasts with evidence from multicultural policies, where persistent cultural separation has been linked to parallel societies fostering and social distrust, as observed in European contexts post-2010s inflows. Policy implementations emphasizing assimilation have yielded measurable successes in tackling integration deficits. Denmark's post-2015 reforms, mandating language training, civic education, and activation for non-Western immigrants, resulted in 65% of program participants passing Danish exams within five years and non-Western immigrant rising to 64.6% by 2023, surpassing rates in neighboring countries with looser multicultural approaches. These outcomes underscore assimilation's causal role in resolving challenges like labor market exclusion and formation, with data indicating sustained gains in second-generation progress when early adaptation is enforced. Historical precedents, such as U.S. restrictions in the , further demonstrate that curbing unassimilated inflows hastens cultural convergence, stabilizing societal metrics like name and intergroup mixing.

Immigrant Assimilation Case Studies

United States

The has historically served as a primary case study in immigrant cultural assimilation, often characterized as a "" where successive waves of newcomers adopted core American norms, language, and values over generations, contributing to national cohesion and . During the Age of from 1850 to 1913, approximately 30 million European immigrants arrived, facing initial cultural isolation but achieving substantial assimilation through mechanisms such as public education, intermarriage, and labor market integration. By 1930, over two-thirds of these immigrants had applied for U.S. , nearly all reported some English proficiency, and one-third of unmarried first-generation immigrants wed outside their cultural group, with rates exceeding 50% among . Post-1965 Immigration and Nationality Act reforms shifted inflows toward and via preferences, introducing larger non-European cohorts with diverse cultural backgrounds and varying socioeconomic starting points. Empirical analyses indicate that assimilation persists, albeit at potentially moderated paces influenced by enclave formation and environments that limit incentives for rapid integration. For instance, second-generation immigrants from —the largest group, comprising about 23% of the foreign-born as of 2023—exhibit marked improvements in English fluency, , and income relative to their parents, converging toward native-born averages by the third generation. Asian immigrants, often arriving with higher education levels (e.g., from and , surpassing as top sources post-2010), demonstrate accelerated economic assimilation, with second-generation wage growth and intermarriage rates closing gaps with natives more swiftly than historical European benchmarks. Key metrics underscore these patterns: language assimilation sees 90%+ English proficiency among second-generation children of immigrants, compared to 50-60% for first-generation arrivals; economic outcomes show intergenerational mobility where children of low-income immigrants gain 5-6 percentile points in ; and cultural markers like name and patriotic attachment match or exceed native levels. Historical restrictions, such as the quotas, accelerated assimilation by reducing inflows and , suggesting that high-volume, low-skill migration can prolong initial segregation. Despite these successes, challenges persist in areas like persistent ethnic enclaves among Mexican-origin groups, which correlate with slower linguistic and spatial integration, and debates over policies that may undermine incentives for adopting host norms. Overall, data affirm that U.S. assimilation remains effective across eras, driven by and institutional pressures rather than coercion, though outcomes vary by origin and entry selectivity.

Europe Post-2010s Migration Waves

The 2015 European migrant crisis marked a significant influx of asylum seekers into Europe, with over 1 million arrivals primarily from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and various African nations, straining integration capacities across multiple countries. Germany alone processed around 500,000 first-time asylum applications that year, representing about 35% of the EU total, while subsequent years saw continued high volumes, totaling 2.6 million first-time requests in Germany from 2015 to 2024. This wave, dominated by non-Western cultural backgrounds, highlighted persistent challenges in cultural assimilation, defined as the adoption of host societies' norms, values, and practices, beyond mere economic participation. Economic integration metrics reveal substantial gaps: in 2023, the unemployment rate for non-EU citizens stood at 12.3%, more than double that of nationals at 5.1%, with rates for non-EU migrants lagging significantly due to mismatches, language barriers, and welfare dependencies. In , which accepted disproportionate numbers relative to its during the crisis peak, integration failures contributed to "parallel societies" characterized by segregated enclaves with high migrant concentrations, low native interaction, and elevated gang violence, as acknowledged by in 2022. These areas often feature informal economies and resistance to host legal frameworks, exacerbating social fragmentation. Similarly, studies indicate short-term crime increases following arrivals, with one analysis showing elevated rates one year post-influx in affected regions, linked to demographic shifts rather than purely socioeconomic factors. Cultural assimilation has proven particularly elusive, with many migrants from Muslim-majority countries retaining values incompatible with European and . Surveys of Muslim populations in reveal widespread support for elements, such as corporal punishments and gender segregation, which conflict with host norms on equality and ; for instance, medians of 40-80% in Southern and Eastern European Muslim communities favor Sharia as official law, underscoring a foundational attitudinal divide. In France's banlieues—suburban housing projects housing large North African migrant descendant populations—spatial segregation fosters identity preservation over fusion, manifesting in recurrent riots (e.g., 2023 unrest following a police shooting), youth disengagement from republican values, and persistence of clan-based honor cultures that undermine gender norms and secular education. Germany's post-2015 experience, despite some economic gains (over 50% of 2015-2016 refugees employed by 2020), includes localized "threat" effects where perceived cultural clashes hinder assimilation, as seen in events like the 2015-2016 mass assaults by North African and Middle Eastern migrants, signaling broader failures in normative alignment. These patterns reflect causal realities of cultural distance: rapid, unvetted mass inflows from societies with collectivist, religiously prescriptive frameworks resist dilution without enforced boundary conditions, leading to policy reversals like Sweden's 2024 net exceeding amid integration breakdowns. While selective successes exist in and second-generation mobility, overall evidence points to stalled assimilation, fueling populist backlashes and stricter EU pacts emphasizing returns and cultural prerequisites over open . Mainstream sources often underemphasize these tensions due to institutional biases favoring narrative harmony, yet empirical indicators—segregation indices, attitudinal surveys, and incident data—consistently demonstrate incomplete convergence with host civilizational cores.

Asia and Other Regions

In , nations like and have historically maintained restrictive policies to preserve ethnic homogeneity, resulting in limited cultural assimilation among the small foreign resident populations. In , foreign residents constituted approximately 2.3% of the total population as of recent estimates, with policies such as the 2019 Specified Skilled Worker program allowing entry for labor shortages in sectors like nursing and construction, but emphasizing temporary stays and requiring proficiency for longer-term visas. Assimilation remains gradual, with studies indicating slow spatial integration as immigrants cluster in urban areas like , where foreign-born individuals comprise up to 10% of those in their 20s in some districts, yet face barriers to full societal incorporation due to cultural expectations of . Similarly, South Korea's foreign population hovers around 4%, primarily consisting of marriage migrants and ethnic Koreans from ; the 2008 Multicultural Family Support Act provides language training, counseling, and adaptation programs through over 230 centers nationwide, aiming to facilitate integration but often prioritizing assimilation into Korean norms over , with acculturative stress persisting among adolescents from these families. In , exemplifies a selective assimilation model within a multiracial framework, where policies since the have targeted high-skilled migrants to address labor needs, comprising about 40% of the as non-citizens by the . New immigrants undergo integration via mandatory English-language use, mixed-ethnic quotas to prevent enclaves, and for male permanent residents, fostering adoption of a shared Singaporean identity over ethnic loyalties; however, this approach has sparked debates on social cohesion amid rapid inflows, with policies differentiating between skilled "talent" encouraged to assimilate and low-skilled workers restricted from settlement. In contrast, Malaysia's approach blends with preferential policies for indigenous Malays, leading to partial assimilation of historical Chinese and Indian immigrants through economic participation, though ethnic enclaves persist and recent migrant inflows face barriers to . In (GCC) states, such as the (UAE) and —categorized here as other regions—immigrant assimilation is minimal despite migrants forming 80-90% of the workforce and up to 88% of the population in the UAE as of 2022. Under the kafala sponsorship system, workers from and elsewhere are bound to employers with limited rights to change jobs or settle permanently, and rates remain negligible, with pathways practically inaccessible even for long-term skilled expatriates who often embrace transient lifestyles without integrating into Emirati or Saudi society. Reforms since 2020 have eased some mobility restrictions, but policies continue to treat migrants as economic inputs rather than potential citizens, resulting in segregated living arrangements and low cultural exchange.

Indigenous and Minority Assimilation Case Studies

North America

In the United States, federal assimilation policies targeted Native American tribes through land allotment and reforms beginning in the late . The of 1887 divided communal tribal reservations into individual parcels of 160 acres for heads of households, with surplus lands opened to non-Native settlement, resulting in the loss of approximately 90 million acres of tribal territory between 1887 and 1934. This policy aimed to promote individual farming and property ownership akin to European-American practices, ostensibly fostering economic self-sufficiency and cultural integration, but it fragmented tribal governance structures and accelerated land dispossession through sales, inheritance disputes, and fraud. Empirical analysis indicates that allotment exposure correlated with increased rates by over 15%, attributed to disrupted community support systems and heightened vulnerability to disease and . Parallel efforts involved off-reservation boarding schools, established under the Civilization Fund Act of 1819 and expanded post-Civil War, where an estimated 60,000 Native children were enrolled by the early to eradicate indigenous languages, religions, and . Students faced for speaking native tongues, mandatory English immersion, and separation from families, with policies explicitly designed to "kill the Indian and save the man" through vocational training and . Long-term data from census records show these institutions contributed to elevated adult mortality rates, rising by up to one-third in affected populations, alongside persistent educational deficits and cultural disconnection persisting into subsequent generations. Language attrition was severe, with over 100 indigenous languages in the U.S. now endangered or extinct, a direct outcome of suppression that reduced fluent speakers by generations. In Canada, the residential school system, operational from the 1880s to 1996 under federal and church administration, enrolled approximately 150,000 Indigenous children—First Nations, Inuit, and Métis—to achieve total assimilation into Euro-Canadian society. Children as young as three were forcibly removed from families, prohibited from practicing cultural traditions, and subjected to physical and emotional abuse, with the explicit goal of severing ties to indigenous heritage. Mortality rates were stark, with thousands of deaths documented from disease, malnutrition, and neglect, as evidenced by recent excavations revealing unmarked graves at over 130 sites. These policies yielded intergenerational effects, including eroded family structures and cultural knowledge transmission, though tribal resilience preserved some languages and practices despite near-total institutional failure to produce integrated citizens without profound social costs. Across , these coercive measures prioritized rapid cultural replacement over voluntary adaptation, leading to measurable declines in indigenous population health metrics—such as elevated and rates in descendant communities—and incomplete assimilation, as evidenced by ongoing tribal assertions and cultural revitalization movements. While proponents cited modernization imperatives, causal evidence links policy intensity to heightened socioeconomic disparities, underscoring the disconnect between intent and outcomes in indigenous contexts.

Australia and New Zealand

In , assimilation policies targeting Aboriginal and Islander peoples intensified after in 1901, with governments in various states enacting laws to remove "half-caste" children from their families for upbringing in institutions or white households, aiming to eradicate Indigenous cultural ties and integrate them into European society. These practices, active primarily from the to the , affected an estimated one in ten to one in three Indigenous children, with the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Islander Children from Their Families (Bringing Them Home, 1997) documenting widespread forcible removals by governments, churches, and welfare bodies. By 2018–19, approximately 27,200 survivors aged 50 and over remained, facing elevated rates of health issues, including disorders at 1.8 times the non-Indigenous rate. Outcomes included profound intergenerational trauma, with 75% of descendants reporting stress in the past year and 34% exhibiting poor , as assimilation efforts eroded and kinship systems without achieving full cultural erasure due to persistent Indigenous resilience and community resistance.30165-8/fulltext) These policies represented a coercive approach lacking legal treaties or recognition of Indigenous sovereignty, contrasting with earlier protectionist eras and contributing to ongoing disparities, as evidenced by higher rates of child removals persisting into the 2020s—3,068 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Western Australia alone by 2023, comprising 59% of such cases despite Aboriginal people being 3.3% of the population. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's national apology in 2008 acknowledged the harm but did not result in comprehensive reparations, with critics noting failures in addressing cultural disconnection and socioeconomic gaps, where Aboriginal unemployment and incarceration rates remain disproportionately high. Empirical data indicate policy ineffectiveness in fostering integration, as cultural revival movements, such as land rights claims post-1976, have reclaimed elements of tradition amid incomplete assimilation. In , assimilation efforts toward Māori began post-Treaty of Waitangi in , which ostensibly guaranteed Māori rights but was undermined by land confiscations and the Native Schools Act of 1867, establishing a state-run system of village primary schools until 1969 that mandated English-only instruction to suppress te reo Māori and promote European norms. Māori communities donated land and funded teacher salaries, yet the policy enforced assimilation by prohibiting native language use, aiming to produce a monocultural society; by 1890, it explicitly targeted children arriving at school speaking Māori to ensure linguistic shift. This system contributed to significant cultural loss, with te reo Māori speakers dropping to under 20% by the mid-20th century, though it failed to eliminate Māori identity entirely, as (extended family) networks and oral traditions endured. The from the 1970s reversed much of this trajectory through activism, including language nests (kōhanga reo) established in , which immersed preschoolers in te reo and revitalized usage to over 4% fluency by 2023, supported by policy shifts like and the Waitangi Tribunal's redress of grievances. Unlike Australia's treaty-less framework, New Zealand's bicultural recognition via the fostered partial success in assimilation—evident in higher socioeconomic integration, with homeownership and gaps narrower than Aboriginal equivalents—yet disparities persist, including health and incarceration rates double the non- average. Comparative analyses highlight New Zealand's approach as relatively effective in achieving hybrid cultural adaptation without total erasure, attributing this to military resistance in the and treaty-based negotiations, though early coercive inflicted lasting trauma.

Latin America

During the Spanish conquest of beginning in , indigenous populations faced severe demographic collapse, with estimates indicating declines of up to 90% in regions like central due to , warfare, and exploitation, which facilitated the imposition of European cultural norms through systems like the that bound survivors to Spanish labor and conversion to Catholicism. This coercive assimilation eroded traditional governance, languages, and spiritual practices, though syncretic elements emerged, such as blended Catholic-indigenous rituals in Andean communities. Portuguese colonization in followed similar patterns, enforcing linguistic and religious shifts among groups like the Tupi, prioritizing extractive economies over cultural preservation. Post-independence in the , Latin American states pursued mestizaje ideologies to forge national identities, promoting racial intermixture as a path to unity while marginalizing pure indigenous traits; in , this manifested in post-1910 revolutionary policies that idealized Aztec heritage symbolically but enforced assimilation through secular education and land reforms disrupting communal structures. programs from 1916 to the 1970s dispatched cultural missions to indigenous areas, aiming to integrate populations into norms by prioritizing Spanish-language instruction and Western values, resulting in measurable identity shifts where each additional year of schooling raised self-identification by approximately 12%. In , early 20th-century labor for projects like highways weakened indigenous institutions in unresisting communities, accelerating cultural erosion, whereas organized opposition in places like Carhuanca preserved some . In Bolivia, where indigenous peoples comprise about 62% of the population, assimilation pressures intensified through 20th-century rebellions and reforms, but resistance to conscription in regions like Cinti fostered accommodations such as communal land titles, tempering full integration. Contemporary urbanization has driven further assimilation, with over 50% of indigenous Latin Americans residing in cities by the late 20th century, where economic necessities prompt language abandonment—evident in Mexico's decline of indigenous language speakers from 1930 to 2000—and adaptation to dominant mestizo or urban cultures, often amid discrimination reported by 40% of indigenous individuals. Despite constitutional recognitions in countries like Bolivia's 2009 plurinational framework, persistent socioeconomic gaps and policy biases toward Spanish-medium education sustain gradual cultural dilution.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3093090/
  2. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43865_2.pdf
  3. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants
  4. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sociology/assimilation
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11443549/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2390825/
  7. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22381/w22381.pdf
  8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2293537
  9. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cultural-assimilation-5225960
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3103187/
  11. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/ethnicity/chapter/assimilation-as-concept-and-as-process/
  12. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=sociologyfacpub
  13. https://www.govtgirlsekbalpur.com/Study_Materials/Geography/Part2_Hons_Geog_Module7_UnitIII_TOPIC3-4_Cultural_Assimilation.pdf
  14. https://ccpr.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Assimilation-and-Gender-in-Naming.pdf
  15. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Social_Justice_Studies/Immigrant_and_Refugee_Families_%28Ballard_Wieling_and_Solheim%29/09%253A_Embracing_a_New_Home-_Resettlement_Research_and_the_Family/9.01%253A_Assimilation
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anthem-companion-to-robert-park/robert-e-parks-theory-of-assimilation-and-beyond/3A37239C4BB734CD06F5AD6BF1C3F6EC
  17. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/assimilation-models-old-and-new-explaining-long-term-process
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2194643/
  19. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716293530001006
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3819936/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2882294/
  22. https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol04x06FromtheMeltingPot.pdf
  23. https://www.ejecs.org/index.php/JECS/article/view/217
  24. https://escholarship.org/content/qt1kx005x6/qt1kx005x6.pdf
  25. https://www.hoover.org/research/melting-pots-and-salad-bowls
  26. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01979183241274747
  27. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/94/the-hellenistic-world-the-world-of-alexander-the-g/
  28. https://www.enotes.com/topics/history/questions/how-did-this-process-romanization-occur-316700
  29. https://astrofella.wordpress.com/2022/02/14/spqr-a-history-ancient-rome-mary-beard-8-assimilation/
  30. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/how-did-christian-middle-east-become-predominantly-muslim
  31. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=histuht
  32. https://academic.oup.com/book/4278/chapter/146153674
  33. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/28-3-3-french-efforts-toward-assimilation/
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/177745
  35. https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/indigenous/allotment
  36. https://mcgrath.nd.edu/assets/390540/expert_guide_on_the_assimilation_removal_and_elimination_of_native_americans.pdf
  37. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/americanization/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7508458/
  39. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/immigrants-and-cultural-assimilation-learning-past
  40. https://www.cato.org/blog/government-immigrant-assimilation-programs-can-backfire-case-german-americans
  41. https://www.nps.gov/articles/boarding-schools.htm
  42. https://www.unesco.org/en/memory-world/children-speak-forced-assimilation-indigenous-children-through-canadian-residential-schools
  43. https://theconversation.com/american-indians-forced-to-attend-boarding-schools-as-children-are-more-likely-to-be-in-poor-health-as-adults-194691
  44. https://arxiv.org/html/2509.02836v1
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096262981830074X
  46. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=urceu
  47. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/sociology/cultural-and-structural-assimilation
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6290669/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537123000362
  50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-021-00863-9
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775718307003
  52. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0403418101
  53. https://www.thecgo.org/research/the-relationship-between-assimilation-and-immigrant-wages/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11784594/
  55. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/10/pgae344/7795945
  56. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12641
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616696.2021.2006258
  58. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-024-01038-3
  59. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/
  60. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/103/4/1508/7905126
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537123000027
  62. https://izajodm.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9039-3-10
  63. https://www.economyandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Drouhot-Nee_Assimilation_021919.pdf
  64. https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/56718536/FULL_TEXT.PDF
  65. https://www.uh.edu/~achin/research/bleakley_chin_english.pdf
  66. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-021-00883-w
  67. https://manhattan.institute/article/accelerating-americanization-a-study-of-immigration-assimilation
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596723000598
  69. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/186903/1/wp229.pdf
  70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2673171
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3634592/
  72. https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&context=diss
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1414713/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2475652/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3235726/
  76. https://www.nps.gov/articles/negotiating-identity.htm
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292124000515
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7163829/
  79. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/failed-assimilation-native-american-boarding-schools/584017/
  80. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sexual-abuse-of-native-american-children-at-boarding-schools-exposed-in-new-report
  81. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_residential_school_system/
  82. https://publichealthreviews.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40985-017-0055-6
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9895934/
  84. https://australianstogether.org.au/discover-and-learn/our-history/stolen-generations
  85. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/stolen-generations
  86. https://www.aihw.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2018/august/new-report-shows-long-term-disadvantage-for-austra
  87. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed
  88. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-12371994
  89. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/05/gifts-of-the-immigrants-woes-of-the-natives-lessons-from-the-age-of-mass-migration/
  90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26745524
  91. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migrant-integration/migrant-integration-hub/eu-countries-updates-and-facts/migrant-integration-denmark_en
  92. https://refugeeswelcome.dk/en/information/facts/integration/how-is-the-integration-of-refugees-in-denmark-going/
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4655828/
  94. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states-2024
  95. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-recognize-american-greatness-immigrants
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596724000568
  97. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/marywaters/files/waters_and_jimenez_2005.pdf
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10118136/
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268022001264
  100. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/europe/germany-refugees-migration-changed-sentiment-intl-cmd
  101. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migrant_integration_statistics_%25E2%2580%2593_labour_market_indicators
  102. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537123001410
  104. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
  105. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66071455
  106. https://coascenters.howard.edu/french-banlieues-and-consequences-spatial-segregation
  107. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/five-years-later-one-million-refugees-are-thriving-germany
  108. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/22-043_a939bd65-018a-46a4-8aff-e4addd994e93.pdf
  109. https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-sees-drop-in-immigration-as-more-people-leave/a-69954145
  110. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-europes-turn-on-migration/
  111. https://www.meforum.org/immigration-without-assimilation-endangers-europe
  112. https://hir.harvard.edu/improved-immigration-japan/
  113. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3849
  114. https://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Society/Transition-to-a-Multicultural-Society
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10800911/
  116. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/080a4bc64cc8a9eb8a2a0e98d97a260a-0050062023/original/WDR-Immigration-in-Singapore-FORMATTED.pdf
  117. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rapid-growth-singapores-immigrant-population-brings-policy-challenges
  118. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/gulf-region-gcc-migration-kafala-reforms
  119. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2024.2441907
  120. https://gulfmigration.grc.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Francoise-De-Bel-Air-Factsheet-No.-13-GCC-Populations-2025-02-27.pdf
  121. https://iltf.org/land-issues/issues/
  122. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/dawes-act.htm
  123. https://www.nber.org/papers/w33057
  124. https://www.history.com/articles/how-boarding-schools-tried-to-kill-the-indian-through-assimilation
  125. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/working-paper/impact-united-states-assimilation-and-allotment-policy-american-indian
  126. https://journals.upress.ufl.edu/rhm/article/view/2261
  127. https://indigenouspeoplesatlasofcanada.ca/article/history-of-residential-schools/
  128. https://nctr.ca/education/teaching-resources/residential-school-history/
  129. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/sep/06/canada-residential-schools-indigenous-children-cultural-genocide-map
  130. https://crdcn.ca/publication/the-long-term-effects-of-forcible-assimilation-policy-the-case-of-indian-boarding-schools-2/
  131. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309367076_The_long-term_effects_of_forcible_assimilation_policy_The_case_of_Indian_boarding_schools
  132. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/indigenous-stolen-generations-50-and-over/contents/summary
  133. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/03/26/all-i-know-i-want-them-home/disproportionate-removal-aboriginal-children-families
  134. https://teara.govt.nz/en/maori-education-matauranga/page-3
  135. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613320600807717
  136. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/maori-language-nest-model-new-zealand
  137. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-67076216
  138. https://caid.ca/ComPolAss1995.pdf
  139. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/extraction-assimilation-and-accommodation-the-historical-foundations-of-indigenousstate-relations-in-latin-america/20D4AD532BC119051C6DA4EBC28DB678
  140. https://iprjb.org/journals/IJHR/article/download/2486/2873/7087
  141. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2024.2329343
  142. https://act.maydaygroup.org/volume-22-issue-3/do-not-dig-further-back-the-500-year-assimilation-project-in-mexico/
  143. https://www.un.org/development/desa/family/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/05/2-1.pdf
  144. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112162/1/AIA_PH_DP_BLAR_1551_intro_final_version_.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.