In my post Religious diversity & its discontents I referred to America as a “Protestant nation.” This caused some confusion because as regular readers know I’m not too focused on theology, as opposed to historical and evolutionary continuity. For example, the fact that every colonial and early republican era Unitarian Church in New England used to be a Congregational Church excepting King’s Chapel is extremely significant to me. American Unitarianism was predominantly Christian until the 20th century (this nation has had 4 Unitarian presidents, though Thomas Jefferson was certainly a closeted Unitarian in terms of his personal beliefs), and theologically had some affinities with the latitudinarianism of Anglicanism (the “Broad Church”). But in terms of its history, institutions and cultural outlook it was a product of Calvinist New England.
I just finished Kevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars, and he gives the statistic that at the time of the American Revolution ~60% of Americans were adherents of dissenting Protestant sects, while only 5-10% of English were (both these numbers are likely underestimates, insofar as exclusions upon dissenters in England probably resulted in many adhering to the Anglican Church, while in regions like Virginia the aristocracy hewed to their customary Anglicanism despite personal heterodoxy of belief which would have made them dissenters). You can read Phillips’ book for his full argument, but in short he argues that there has been a centuries long conflict which organizes itself along the divisions which first came to the fore in the early 17th century between Puritans and Cavaliers. This chasm is descriptively obvious, copiously documented in works of scholarship such as Albion’s Seed.
What stuck me in hindsight is Phillips’ review of the data which suggests that there was a strong tendency among Protestant immigrants from European nations to assimilate to the Anglo-Saxon folkways which they encountered in the United States. This is why metaphors such as “the melting pot,” “salad bowl” or “stew” as a model for American cultural evolution mislead, they deny the consistent hegemonic role played by Anglo-Saxon cultures. As an example, below are the results from the General Social Survey on the denominational breakdown for the 2/3 of German Americans who label themselves Protestant. Though the traditional Lutheran church is prominent, the majority of German American Protestants now affiliate with sects of British origin.
| German American Protestants | |
| Denomination | Frequency |
| Baptist | 19.3 |
| Methodist | 17.5 |
| Lutheran | 26.2 |
| Presbyterian | 7.2 |
| Episcopal | 3 |
| Other | 18.8 |
| No Denomination | 8.1 |
Assuming that 1/2 of the “Other” are various Reformed & Calvinist and Mennonite groups you get about ~1/3 of German Protestants adhering to their “ancestral” religions (I think I’m being very generous in regards to the proportion of non-Lutheran Protestants). The frequency for German Americans who are Roman Catholic is ~21%, which seems a bit on the low side. I assume there has been some erosion to dissenting Protestantism from this group as well.
I always took the melting pot metaphor to imply a central hegemony culture that was stable. It changes but changes only slightly over time with the assimilation of other cultures. (Think the arts which is so dominated culturally by the descendants o African slaves — Elvis may have been a WASP but culturally he was mimicking an other cultural forces)
I believe the stew metaphor was designed to be in opposition to the melting pot metaphor so as to imply more individual diversity of communities. In one sense that’s true. Think of the Chinese communities, African American communities and even to a lesser extent Irish and Italian communities. But there was always a dominant culture and especially since WWII when the country became more cosmopolitan the “stew” metaphor has dissipated a lot. (The typical person of Chinese descent today has far more in common with the dominant culture than probably the Chinese person of the 1950’s: to such an extent that one could argue the racial cultures became a minor influence rather than a major one) So if the “stew” metaphor was supposed to imply less mixing I think the opposite has happened. Since the 1970’s I think we’ve become more of a melting place due to the role media plays in people’s lives.
(It’d be interesting if there were a way to quantify this somehow – but this is just my experience)
That said I don’t think anyone denies that British and Scottish Anglican culture dominated the US “melting pot.”
The typical person of Chinese descent today has far more in common with the dominant culture than probably the Chinese person of the 1950’s
on a specific detail, the chinese of today are more of an immigrant community than that of the 1950s.
(It’d be interesting if there were a way to quantify this somehow – but this is just my experience)
i think i’ll try and use shannon’s index of diversity at some point and start generating charts 🙂
That said I don’t think anyone denies that British and Scottish Anglican culture dominated the US “melting pot.”
you mean anglo, right? though anglicanism in the form of episcopalians have been politically, economically and culturally influential, dissenters were generally anti-anglican. of the america cultural “hearths” pre-revolution only the low-country south (e.g., tidewater, coastal carolinas) was really anglican. the up-country was presbyterian, new england congregationalism, and the mid-atlantic mixed (quaker dominant in pennsylvania, new york a literal stew, etc.).
and of course the established church of scotland, the kirk, was really equivalent to presbyterianism.
btw, the non-theological definition of protestantism works well with mormons. my own position is that in terms of theology mormons lay outside the mainline of christianity, period. but culturally they’re clearly descended from the greater yankee dissenting culture.
The greatest bond any group of people can have is a common language. In the case of the United States, that language was and is English. Once immigrants start speaking English, they become heirs by default to the whole literary canon and, to a very great extent, the cultural traditions.
The greatest bond any group of people can have is a common language.
i don’t know about that. it depends on context. common language is ubiquitous, but common religion might elicit the greatest instances of intensity of bonding. interesting debate to have though. the synthesis of the two, as occurred among irish republican radicals, is potent (though very few irish speak gaelic as a first language, i think a lot learn it as a second for nationalist reasons).
btw, many german american communities remained german speaking into the 20th century. this is why lawrence welk has a peculiar accent despite being born in the united states.
@David Hume
It probably does depend on context. The subject is intresting to me because half of my maternal ancestors were German, who emigrated here sometime around 1880 or so. Apparently they made it a point to stop speaking German and learn English as quickly as possible. They did join the local Lutheran church, although since they weren’t particuarly religious, that maybe have been more for communal reasons. I do know that they thought of themselves as Americans rather than Germans. Same for my Danish maternal ancestors, who also joined the local Lutheran church.
Apparently they made it a point to stop speaking German and learn English as quickly as possible.
this is somewhat “against the grain.”* germans were among the most resistant to anglicization. the irish american hierarchy for example had a very difficult time stamping out anti-english germanism, and it is well known that a german language school system persisted into the 20th century. world war I, and to a lesser extent world war II, ended these attempts (excluding religious isolates such as the amish).
* though this may be selection bias of what was notable to the press and scholars at the time, perhaps many germans just “went english” without notice, and only the huge number who attempted to resist anglicization in a coordinated manner was commented upon.
It could be that my ancestors were unusual in that respect. This is an interesting topic; I should read more about it. I do recall my mother saying that her great-grandmothers, whom she knew, were quite insistent that “We are now Americans. We speak English.” They also became fairly well-off, or at least financially comfortable, fairly quickly, and I suppose the emphasis on becoming instant English-speaking Americans had something to do with that. Probably they, as northern Protestant Europeans, found it easier to assimilate than other other ethnic groups might have.
It should be noted that “Baptist” is also a German origin sect; that is, there was a substantial number of “German Baptists”, and IIRC they were as mainstream as anglo Baptists.
Also, for Germans of “Reformed” background, Presbyterianism was no real change.
I will have to look at the GSS to see what the religious distribution of other ethnicities is. I would especially like to know what percentage of practicing Lutherans are of historically non-Lutheran descent.
on a specific detail, the chinese of today are more of an immigrant community than that of the 1950s.
Razib, on what particular point are modern Chinese immigrants more an immigrant culture than those of say the 1940’s through 1950’s when white culture refused to allow real assimilation? I’m curious because it seems the children of Chinese, whether of older generational stock or even newer stock, are often hard to distinguish from the typical suburbanite – often causing quite a bit of consternation with parents. (I can think of several roommates where this was the case) If only by not staying in immigrant communities in the same way, things have changed. I really think the media and modern education simply makes the socialization of the melting pot that much quicker. The only groups who are able to avoid this are those who intentionally avoid public schooling and media. (Think Amish, Ultra-orthodox Jews, FLDS and others)
though anglicanism in the form of episcopalians have been politically, economically and culturally influential, dissenters were generally anti-anglican. of the america cultural “hearths” pre-revolution only the low-country south (e.g., tidewater, coastal carolinas) was really anglican. the up-country was presbyterian, new england congregationalism, and the mid-atlantic mixed (quaker dominant in pennsylvania, new york a literal stew, etc.).
My point was more about having a disproportionate influence on the main dominant culture. I should note that especially after the revolutionary war things got tricky for Anglicans. (Thus the name change to Epicopalian whereas back home in Canada Anglican is still a respected term) The other cultures all contributed to the melting pot – but just not in a radically shift changing way.
btw, the non-theological definition of protestantism works well with mormons. my own position is that in terms of theology mormons lay outside the mainline of christianity, period. but culturally they’re clearly descended from the greater yankee dissenting culture.
I think historians have been moving to reject the so-called “hermetic” cultural parallels popularized in the 90’s to seeing Mormons as more an indigenous movement akin to the radicalism of the Anabaptists back in Europe. So certainly there are strong elements of that. Overall I think Mormonism was quite a melting pot itself with several waves of immigration such that new immigrants outnumbered older Mormons. (For many years new European converts significantly outnumbered Americans) But even amongst the leadership who fit what you note better, there were waves of rethinking and they investigated new ideas. So there was such a mixing that I’m skeptical of a single meta-narrative explaining 19th century Mormonism. Or even 20th – consider the rapid change after the US government was willing to destroy the Church – Mormonism reinvented itself quite a bit to become what it is now. Now we’re like the Jews having a disproportionate influence on culture and politics to our size.
Razib, on what particular point are modern Chinese immigrants more an immigrant culture than those of say the 1940’s through 1950’s when white culture refused to allow real assimilation
a much higher % of chinese in america today are 1st generation immigrants than in 1950. in 1950 chinese who were 1st generation immigrants would have been very old men & women, thanks to the oriental exclusion act (or, a few select immigrants allowed in for political or educational reasons). certainly the frequency of language fluency in chinese is also higher today, but the most striking thing has been the de-christianization of asian amerians since 1990. that’s due to immigration.
Another possible factor to keep in mind is that many of those who self-identify as German Americans are actually a mix of German and British (or other) ancestry. Although I am not really familiar with the data collection methods used by the GSS, I did spend several years as an interviewer for the U.S. Census Bureau and ran into situations like this frequently.
The Census Bureau does gather information on the ethnic background of the U.S. population, based on people’s answers to the the decennial census or to the American Community Survey. With people whose families have lived in the U.S. for generations, however, the answers that we got to this question often seemed to be educated guesses at best. In particular, these answers would emphasize the branches of people’s families who had immigrated to this country within recent memory, while not including those branches that had been here longer (for example, a person with one German great-grandparent might identify his or her ancestry as German, perhaps not even knowing the origin of the other 7 g-grandparents).
Some states in the South are reported as having a significant number of German Americans in their population, despite the fact that there has never been any substantial German immigration to the region.
jack, i think you are right.