Trevor McCoy's assessment of Fredrickson's Argument

Fredrickson's "Models of Ethnic Relations" is an interesting read in that it makes the reader consider concepts that are normally considered to be taboo. Americans are taught to ignore all racial, ethnical, and cultural differences and pretend as if they do not exist. If an American was to comment on someone else's race, it would be considered rude and immature. Fredrickson openly discusses these differences in a mature manner to identify how America should be structured.

Of the different models of American relations, Fredrickson finds that cultural pluralism is the best way to structure a country as large and diverse as America. I agree with this conclusion for the simple reason that it is the most realistic. Of the four structures, an ethnic hierarchy is completely out of the question and represents a very ignorant society. While the other three structures are all plausible and fair, the ethnic hierarchy would never be accepted by the "inferior classes." This leaves three plausible structures: one-way assimilation, cultural pluralism, and group separatism.

The reason that cultural pluralism is the most realistic of the three is that the other two are extreme representations of how a society could be organized. In one-way assimilation, everyone is supposed to think alike on all issues as one "united" country. On the opposite equally extreme side of the spectrum is group separatism. In this structure, people of similar views would all be organized to live together in separate, self-governing communities. This would reduce argumentation between people with opposing views and would allow for communities to be more efficient. However, complete separation of people because of their differences would destroy the very thing that makes culturally diverse nations such as America so special. America has been able to prosper so well for all of these years, because it has not only acknowledged differences in perspectives, but encouraged them. This is where cultural pluralism comes into effect.

I really liked cultural pluralism, because its main point is that differences are encouraged so that multiple perspectives can be taken. This is vital in order to advance a society and is especially important in discussions of ethics and philosophy. For this reason, even though I vigorously defended group separatism in the debates, I believe that cultural pluralism is the most realistic as well as morally correct of the different national structures that Fredrickson discusses.