Immigration Portrayed as an Experience of Uprootedness, Immigration Portrayed as an Experience and Transplantation, & From The Uprooted to The Transplanted

The mentalité discussed by Handlin and Bodnar discusses neither the ‘push’ nor ‘pull’ factors of immigration but the ‘stay’ factor immigrants faced. Handlin discusses how most of the immigrants were agriculturist and saw land they were born on as a part of them and leaving such land as hard a leaving you family, another factor these immigrants faced. Bodnar discusses that the emigrants thought only of local factors. They thought of food and earning a living but not of “injustice and unfair treatments.”

Vecoli discusses in the beginning of his work that after the fifties there was a “escape from a collective amnesia”. This is I think inherently untrue. First off, you cannot have amnesia of the experiences of immigrants in the field of immigration history without first learning it. The historians of the time before the fifties did not forget immigration history but thought it did not place a large enough role in American history to merit research into the subject. Secondly by relating it to amnesia where memories often come back instantaneously when they do, immigration history is not one where suddenly you get the research but a build-up of years and works that lead to immigration history that Vecoli then discusses for the rest of his article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *