two ways to belong in america thesis

Two Ways to Belong in America Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Being an immigrant is not an easy. People immigrating to another country do not do so because of good situation in their home country. Most people are driven in their immigration decision based on their search for a better life, or at least better than the one in their home countries. In that regard, no matter how bad it was back home, people still feel connection with their land which sometimes result in a two-sided situation, where people are torn in establishing the country they belong to.

A similar situation is found in the biographical article “Two ways to Belong in America” by Bharati Mukherjee, which describes two different perspectives on how immigrants perceive themselves in America, based on the opinions of the author and her Sister Mira. The article was written as a response to the proposal, which was eventually defeated, to deny legal benefits to resident aliens, and accordingly this paper analyzes these different perspectives based on the difference between the perceptions of the two sisters, stating that belonging to another country implies more than legally living there.

The position of Bharati is mainly that the way she belongs to America is complete, i.e. being a citizen. She does not hold that bond anymore, where she even “welcomed the emotional strain that came from marrying from [her] ethnic community” (Kirszner and Mandell, p. 416). Bharati became a citizen for the United States and the proposed policy did not affect her as she had no intentions to go back to her homeland India, and as her sister think, she erased her “Indianness”.

Mira, on the other hand, represents a legal resident, an immigrant whose only bond is to take “the permanent protection and economic benefits that come with living and working in America.” This status was fine with Mira, as long as she could go wherever she wanted to maintaining her own identity. The propose policy, even though it was defeated, just revealed the truth that the other way of belonging to America does not make her an immigrant, where she is just “expatriate Indian”.

In that regard, the difference in the sisters’ perception comes from that with that policy proposed, there is no really two ways to belong to America. There is only one way in which you become not only a citizen, but also opting for changes from the conditions left behind, which for Bharati were the fluidity, self-invention, and cultural marriage rejection. Other than that, it does not matter that you pay your taxes, obey the rules, or speak English with fluency, you will remain an alien, and as Bharati said, it is a price that they are willing to pay. Accordingly, even if Mira obtained citizenship, she would do so just to have the advantages of a citizen, not because she wants to devote her life to this country.

It can be concluded, that the situation presented in Bharati’s article demonstrates that no matter how hard it was for people in their homeland, they still have that bond. It is only that the policy did not differentiate between citizens and legal residents in treatment that such people thought that it is possible to belong in America in two ways, maintaining the citizenship and enjoying the benefits. As soon as such policy changes, there is only one way to totally belong to America, and that implies more than just living there.

Works Cited

Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell. Patterns for College Writing : A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. 10th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2006.

• "Lemon Tree" by Eran Riklis
• Asian Studies. "The Namesake" Novel and "Mississippi Masala" Film
• Should Harlequin re-enter the single-title business?
• Humanities. Immigration Issues in the United States
• How Migration Affects Identity
• The Effects of Immigration in Texas
• Jobs and the American Economy: The Issue of Immigration
• Indonesian Transmigration Program
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 2). Two Ways to Belong in America. https://ivypanda.com/essays/two-ways-to-belong-in-america/

"Two Ways to Belong in America." IvyPanda , 2 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/two-ways-to-belong-in-america/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Two Ways to Belong in America'. 2 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Two Ways to Belong in America." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/two-ways-to-belong-in-america/.

1. IvyPanda . "Two Ways to Belong in America." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/two-ways-to-belong-in-america/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Two Ways to Belong in America." November 2, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/two-ways-to-belong-in-america/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Two Ways to Belong in America

By Bharati Mukherjee

• Sept. 22, 1996

This is a tale of two sisters from Calcutta, Mira and Bharati, who have lived in the United States for some 35 years, but who find themselves on different sides in the current debate over the status of immigrants. I am an American citizen and she is not. I am moved that thousands of long-term residents are finally taking the oath of citizenship. She is not.

Mira arrived in Detroit in 1960 to study child psychology and pre-school education. I followed her a year later to study creative writing at the University of Iowa. When we left India, we were almost identical in appearance and attitude. We dressed alike, in saris; we expressed identical views on politics, social issues, love and marriage in the same Calcutta convent-school accent. We would endure our two years in America, secure our degrees, then return to India to marry the grooms of our father's choosing.

Instead, Mira married an Indian student in 1962 who was getting his business administration degree at Wayne State University. They soon acquired the labor certifications necessary for the green card of hassle-free residence and employment.

Mira still lives in Detroit, works in the Southfield, Mich., school system, and has become nationally recognized for her contributions in the fields of pre-school education and parent-teacher relationships. After 36 years as a legal immigrant in this country, she clings passionately to her Indian citizenship and hopes to go home to India when she retires.

In Iowa City in 1963, I married a fellow student, an American of Canadian parentage. Because of the accident of his North Dakota birth, I bypassed labor-certification requirements and the race-related ''quota'' system that favored the applicant's country of origin over his or her merit. I was prepared for (and even welcomed) the emotional strain that came with marrying outside my ethnic community. In 33 years of marriage, we have lived in every part of North America. By choosing a husband who was not my father's selection, I was opting for fluidity, self-invention, blue jeans and T-shirts, and renouncing 3,000 years (at least) of caste-observant, ''pure culture'' marriage in the Mukherjee family. My books have often been read as unapologetic (and in some quarters overenthusiastic) texts for cultural and psychological ''mongrelization.'' It's a word I celebrate.

Mira and I have stayed sisterly close by phone. In our regular Sunday morning conversations, we are unguardedly affectionate. I am her only blood relative on this continent. We expect to see each other through the looming crises of aging and ill health without being asked. Long before Vice President Gore's ''Citizenship U.S.A.'' drive, we'd had our polite arguments over the ethics of retaining an overseas citizenship while expecting the permanent protection and economic benefits that come with living and working in America.

Like well-raised sisters, we never said what was really on our minds, but we probably pitied one another. She, for the lack of structure in my life, the erasure of Indianness, the absence of an unvarying daily core. I, for the narrowness of her perspective, her uninvolvement with the mythic depths or the superficial pop culture of this society. But, now, with the scapegoating of ''aliens'' (documented or illegal) on the increase, and the targeting of long-term legal immigrants like Mira for new scrutiny and new self-consciousness, she and I find ourselves unable to maintain the same polite discretion. We were always unacknowledged adversaries, and we are now, more than ever, sisters.

''I feel used,'' Mira raged on the phone the other night. ''I feel manipulated and discarded. This is such an unfair way to treat a person who was invited to stay and work here because of her talent. My employer went to the I.N.S. and petitioned for the labor certification. For over 30 years, I've invested my creativity and professional skills into the improvement of this country's pre-school system. I've obeyed all the rules, I've paid my taxes, I love my work, I love my students, I love the friends I've made. How dare America now change its rules in midstream? If America wants to make new rules curtailing benefits of legal immigrants, they should apply only to immigrants who arrive after those rules are already in place.''

To my ears, it sounded like the description of a long-enduring, comfortable yet loveless marriage, without risk or recklessness. Have we the right to demand, and to expect, that we be loved? (That, to me, is the subtext of the arguments by immigration advocates.) My sister is an expatriate, professionally generous and creative, socially courteous and gracious, and that's as far as her Americanization can go. She is here to maintain an identity, not to transform it.

I asked her if she would follow the example of others who have decided to become citizens because of the anti-immigration bills in Congress. And here, she surprised me. ''If America wants to play the manipulative game, I'll play it too,'' she snapped. ''I'll become a U.S. citizen for now, then change back to Indian when I'm ready to go home. I feel some kind of irrational attachment to India that I don't to America. Until all this hysteria against legal immigrants, I was totally happy. Having my green card meant I could visit any place in the world I wanted to and then come back to a job that's satisfying and that I do very well.''

In one family, from two sisters alike as peas in a pod, there could not be a wider divergence of immigrant experience. America spoke to me -- I married it -- I embraced the demotion from expatriate aristocrat to immigrant nobody, surrendering those thousands of years of ''pure culture,'' the saris, the delightfully accented English. She retained them all. Which of us is the freak?

Mira's voice, I realize, is the voice not just of the immigrant South Asian community but of an immigrant community of the millions who have stayed rooted in one job, one city, one house, one ancestral culture, one cuisine, for the entirety of their productive years. She speaks for greater numbers than I possibly can. Only the fluency of her English and the anger, rather than fear, born of confidence from her education, differentiate her from the seamstresses, the domestics, the technicians, the shop owners, the millions of hard-working but effectively silenced documented immigrants as well as their less fortunate ''illegal'' brothers and sisters.

Nearly 20 years ago, when I was living in my husband's ancestral homeland of Canada, I was always well-employed but never allowed to feel part of the local Quebec or larger Canadian society. Then, through a Green Paper that invited a national referendum on the unwanted side effects of ''nontraditional'' immigration, the Government officially turned against its immigrant communities, particularly those from South Asia.

I felt then the same sense of betrayal that Mira feels now. I will never forget the pain of that sudden turning, and the casual racist outbursts the Green Paper elicited. That sense of betrayal had its desired effect and drove me, and thousands like me, from the country.

Mira and I differ, however, in the ways in which we hope to interact with the country that we have chosen to live in. She is happier to live in America as expatriate Indian than as an immigrant American. I need to feel like a part of the community I have adopted (as I tried to feel in Canada as well). I need to put roots down, to vote and make the difference that I can. The price that the immigrant willingly pays, and that the exile avoids, is the trauma of self-transformation.

Header Ads Widget

• _Grammar Lessons
• __Parts of Speech
• __Noun and its Types
• __Adjectives
• __Adverb and its Uses
• __Positions of Adverbs
• __Question Tags
• __Prepositions
• __Punctuation
• __Some time VS Sometime VS Sometimes
• _Video Docs
• Student Section

Two Ways to Belong in America - By Bharati Mukherjee

It is a fact that America is the land where one can experience many cultures. People from all around the globe come to this country to improve their lifestyle, to have better education and live the American dream to fulfil their wishes. However, there is a common misconception that every immigrant is similar; thus, they all have similar dreams. This may not be true in all cases. Different people come to America with different dreams. Even people who share the same background may have varying hopes and dreams for their future. This is what we find in Bharati Mukherjee's essay " Two Ways to Belong to America". Bharati and Mira have been exposed to the same kind of environment and situation, yet they react differently to their immigrant experiences. Mukherjee has shown that immigrants can assimilate themselves into the American culture, but if they resist cultural changes, they should not be forced to go away from America in any way by implementing any new rules which may be a betrayal. Mukherjee has expressed this by mentioning her personal experience in America.

This essay talks about Mukherjee's personal experience and the transformation that she finds in her life because of her stay in America. The title of the essay states that there are two ways to belong in America. One is to become  an expatriate hoping to be back to their home country one day , and another is to become  an immigrant by accepting every rule and regulation, culture, lifestyle and everything of the settled land .

"Two Ways to Belong in America" is a story of two sisters from Calcutta, Mira and Bharati, who are alike in appearance and attitude. They dressed alike, in saris. Both of them had identical views on politics, social issues, love, and marriage before they moved to America to pursue their further study. Both sisters had planned that they would return to India after the completion of their higher study in America and would marry the grooms their father would choose for them; however, everything did not go as planned. Later they found themselves standing on two different sides in the debates over the status of immigrants in America.

Mira went to America in 1960 to study child psychology and pre-school education whereas following her after one year, Bharati moved to the US to pursue creative writing. After two years, Mira married an Indian student in 1962 and got the labour certificate which is necessary for the green card to live legally and comfortably there. She lived there for more than 36 years with Indian citizenship, hoping that she would be back in her home country one day after her retirement. On the other hand side, Bharati married outside of her culture with her fellow student in 1963, an American of Canadian parentage. After being in a married relationship with a Canadian-American man, she knew that she had to face the emotional strain and was ready for that. She welcomed her new life: she explored herself in a new way. By choosing her husband against her father's selection, she opted for fluidity (transformation) and self-invention. She transformed herself from a sari to blue jeans and T-shirts. By doing so, she ruined her 3,000 years old caste-observation and lived in every part of North America. Her scholarly pieces have often been perused as proud writings for cultural and psychological "mongrelization" in that every text reflects that she does not feel sorry for what she has done.

Since they were the single blood relative of each other, they stayed close over phone conversations. Although both sisters have different opinions now, they still maintained polite conversation. They pitied one another. Mira sympathized with Bharati for her marriage out of her ethnic community which is erasing Indianness and unstructured lifestyle while Bharati sympathized with Mira for her narrow perception and superficial understanding of American society. Both have adopted America in their own ways based on their experiences there. Mira wants to maintain her Indian identity, but later Vice President Gore's "Citizenship USA" drive and the increase of illegal migration change the tone of the conversation between the two sisters. Mira felt manipulated, used and discarded by the American government. Mira expressed her dismay that how America can impose its new rules even upon the legal immigrants like me who invested her knowledge for the development of American pre-school and obeyed all the rules. If America is to apply its new rules curtailing benefits of legal immigrants, that should be imposed on those who enter America after those rules are already in place. This voice of Mira is not just of the immigrant South Asian community but of an immigrant community of the millions who have stayed rooted in one job, one city, one house, one ancestral culture, one cuisine, for the entirety of their productive years. Mira wants to stay in America but expresses her strong rejection of getting American citizenship. In her outrage, she snapped "If American wants to play the manipulative game, I'll play it, too." It proves that how passionately Mira clings to her Indian citizenship and hopes to go home to India by renouncing the temporary American citizenship. She is determined to maintain her Indianness. Even after a long stay in America; she resists an American transformation in her life there because she still feels it as a foreign country.

Contrariwise, Bharati has completely adopted the American culture and enjoys her new transformed lifestyle. she feels like a part of the new society. However, she also felt the same sense of betrayal in Canada that Mira feels in America when she went to Canada to live with her husband and was placed in a good job. In spite of her superior position in merit and job, she was discriminated against by the local Canadian society. The feel of betrayal in Canada forced many immigrants to leave the country. Because of the discriminatory behaviour of the Canadian government, she acknowledged the pain of Mira. Therefore, she felt the necessity of acquiring citizenship of the community no matter where (either in America or In Canada) she lives.

In conclusion, Bharati has sketched the difference between Mira and herself. Mira lives there happily as an expatriate Indian with a hope of returning to India after she gets retired rather than living there as an immigrant American whereas Bharati adopts the new American culture and is ready to encounter the trauma of self-transformation in order to become the part of the settled land. This trauma is experienced only by the immigrants like Bharati, but the expatriates like Mira escape this.

Comprehension

1. At first, how long did Mukherjee and her sister intend to stay in America? Why did they change their plans?

At first, Mukherjee and her sister intended to stay in America for two years to complete her higher education and then return to India where they would marry the grooms of their father's choosing. They changed their plans of returning to India because they married men of their own choice in America: Mira married an Indian whereas Bharati married an American of Canadian parentage.

2. What does Mukherjee mean when she says she welcomed the "emotional strain" of "marrying outside [her] ethnic community"(5)?

Mukherjee means that she was ready to face any kind of negative reaction or emotional pressure that was to come from her decision, and she was fully determined to be with her decision, no matter what may come on the way because she felt that making her own decision despite any consequences was a symbol of her strength and independence which would allow her to explore herself in a new way in the adopted culture and society.

3. In what ways is Mukherjee different from her sister? What kind of relationship do they have?

After reaching America, they had different opinions and attitudes. Bharati felt that it was not important to get stuck with her Indianness; hence, she embraced every aspect of American society to feel like a part of that society whereas her sister, Mira valued her Indian background more than anything; thus, she passionately clung to her Indian citizenship. However, they were very loving towards each other but disagreed with each other's views on citizenship.

4. Why does Mukherjee's sister feel used? Why does she say that America has "change[d] its rules in midstream" (8)?

Before Vice President Gore's "Citizenship USA", Mira was comfortable living in America legally but without citizenship. She was able to maintain her Indianness without feeling any pressure to give up her nationality or leave the country. She has honestly done her job there. She has invested a great deal of time, energy and love into her work there, but now due to the implementation of the new rule caused by Gore's "Citizenship USA", she has felt a risk of losing her Indian citizenship and stability unless she becomes an American citizen. When she says that America has "change[d] its rules in midstream", she means that the new laws for immigration should only be imposed on those who enter America after those rules are already in place.

5. According to Mukherjee, how is her sister like all immigrants who "have stayed rooted in one job, one city, one house, one ancestral culture, one cuisine, for the entirety of their productive years" (12)?

According to Mukherjee, her sister - Mira - is like all immigrants because she has a strong attachment and passion for her Indian identity despite living in America for a long time (36 years). She does not have any interest to assimilate herself into the American culture by acknowledging new rules in operation.

Purpose and Audience

1. What is Mukherjee's thesis? At what point does she state it?

The core idea of Mukherjee's writing is that nobody can have similar experiences to others in America. Everybody experiences it differently, and accordingly, they react as well. This thing she clearly states in the line "In one family, from two sisters alike as peas in a pod, there could not be a wider divergence of immigrant experiences."

2. At whom is Mukherjee aiming her remarks? Immigrants like herself? Immigrants like her sister? General readers? Explain.

At a glance, it seems that Mukherjee's remarks are aimed at her sister, Mira as she passionately maintains her Indian root but in fact, her remarks may have targeted other immigrants like herself because she seems to have understood Mira's decision of retaining her Indianness at the end of the essay when she faced the discriminatory behaviour of the Canadian government. Her realization of the validity of resisting citizenship may help others who also have the same views as Mukherjee had to understand the importance of citizenship.

3. What is Mukherjee's purpose? Is she trying to inform? To move readers to action? To accomplish something else? Explain.

The purpose of this essay is to inform rather than something else as Mukherjee has tried to convey the message to her readership that there cannot be a common and universal immigrant experience no matter what their geographical or family background is; hence, each immigrant's dreams and perspective of things are different from each other.

Style and Structure

1. What basis for comparison exists between Mukherjee and her sister? Where in the essay does Mukherjee establish this basis?

After having a minute reading of some beginning paragraphs, the establishment of the basis of comparison between the two sisters is noticed. Both sisters planned to live in the US for the same period of time (two years) to complete their higher education and then return to India. Mukherjee mentioned similarities between them before coming to the US, but when they got married in the US, they stay longer and they shared different views based on their immigrant experiences.

2. Is this essay a point-by-point or a subject-by-subject comparison? Why do you think Mukherjee chose the strategy she did?

This essay is a point-by-point comparison. Mukherjee has chosen specific points to compare her experiences and her sister's experiences. She talks about each specific point to highlight each other's experiences; for example, their views on maintaining nationality, American culture, marriage outside their ethnic community, Vice President Gore's "Citizenship USA" and the like. This pattern of comparison is appropriate here to compare each other's experiences wherever they vary in their lives.

3. What points does Mukherjee discuss for each subject? Should she have discussed any other points?

The points Mukherjee discusses are each sister's marriage, their views on Indian culture and heritage, retaining citizenship, and the choice to embrace American culture and lifestyle. These are the points that Mukherjee considers time and again throughout the entire essay as she finds her views have shifted over time with the country's changing views on immigration.

4. What transitional words and phrases does Mukherjee use to signal shifts from one point to another?

The transitional words and phrases that Mukherjee uses are "Instead... (3)", "I realize... (12)", and "Nearly 20 years ago... (13)".

5. How effective is Mukherjee's conclusion? Does it summarize the essay's major points? Would another strategy be more effective? Explain.

Mukherjee's conclusion is effective. She has concluded that no matter how different experiences one has as an immigrant, s/she has to face challenges. To stay in America comfortably, immigrants must change themselves to get assimilated into the new society. In Mukherjee's case, she has willingly adopted the new culture: the change came more willingly in her. It does never mean that she did not face challenges in Canada and that event made Mukherjee realize that challenges are almost certain to come in the life of immigrants. In her sister's case, Mira was forced to gain citizenship of America which she never wished for. She is happier to live in America as an expatriate Indian and never puts her roots down. Therefore, she avoids the trauma of self-transformation.

Vocabulary Projects

1. Define each of the following words as it is used in this selection.

2. What, according to Mukherjee, is the difference between an immigrant and an exile (15)? What are the connotations of these two words? Do you think the distinction Mukherjee makes is valid?

The term "immigrant" is used for the people like herself in America who is ready to assimilate into the new cultural and social structure, and the term "exile" is for immigrants like her sister who passionately clings to her Indian heritage. Mukherjee states that if someone is reluctant to assimilate themselves into the new structure, they are exiled from the new country. This distinction Mukherjee draws in the rest of her essay and is, therefore, an appropriate way to phrase it.

You may like these posts

Post a comment, social plugin, subscribe it.

Random Posts

Popular posts.

My Mother Never Worked - By Bonnie Smith-Yackel (Narration)

Only Daughter (Narration) - By Sandra Cisneros

Menu footer widget.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

distribution channel research paper

Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee

Bharati Mukherjee is an author of Indian descent who immigrated to America in 1961. She was born in 1940 and was raised in Calcutta, India. She earned an M.F.A and a Ph.D. in literature. Bharati Mukherjee has authored several books that have gained her worldwide fame and recognition. Two Ways to Belong in America is a short piece that first appeared in the New York Times. It is a piece that was aimed at addressing congressional changes to take away many of the benefits that resident aliens had in America.

In the narrative, Bharati Mukherjee explains the two differing views that she and her sister have towards being American. The characters are Bharti and Mira, her sister. The theme is culture. The central conflict in the narrative is the difference in opinion on how to become an American citizen. The what of the conflict is keeping the keeping of culture. The why is one sister wants to keep the culture while the other does not. The when is in the 1980s and the where is in America. Bharati Mukherjee believes in adopting America’s culture and leaving her own behind. She states, “I was opting for fluidity, self-invention, blue jeans, and T-shirts.” (Mukherjee, 2013, p. 2).

Mukherjee also retains a green card and is a citizen of America. Her sister, Mira, did not abandon her tradition. She still wears saris and observes other aspects of Indian tradition. She also does not have US citizenship and believes she will go back to India after she has retired. The removal of alien benefits is likely to negatively impact her more than Bharati. In conclusion, Bharati Mukherjee explains the opposing ways of being an American immigrant. Mukherjee adopted American culture and left behind her own while her sister Mira holds on to her culture and retains her identity as an Indian woman. The conflict at the heart of the narrative is the effect that removing alien benefits is likely to have for Mira and hundreds of thousands more like her who hold on to their native citizenship.

Mukherjee, B. (2013). Two ways to belong in America. In Away (pp. 271-274). Routledge.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2023, November 28). Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee. https://studycorgi.com/themes-in-two-ways-to-belong-in-america-book-by-mukherjee/

"Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee." StudyCorgi , 28 Nov. 2023, studycorgi.com/themes-in-two-ways-to-belong-in-america-book-by-mukherjee/.

StudyCorgi . (2023) 'Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee'. 28 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee." November 28, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/themes-in-two-ways-to-belong-in-america-book-by-mukherjee/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee." November 28, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/themes-in-two-ways-to-belong-in-america-book-by-mukherjee/.

StudyCorgi . 2023. "Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee." November 28, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/themes-in-two-ways-to-belong-in-america-book-by-mukherjee/.

This paper, “Themes in “Two Ways to Belong in America” Book by Mukherjee”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 28, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Subodh Bhattarai (English & Communication Notes - BBA/BBS/BBBS/BHM/BIM//MBA/MBS & +2)

This blog is created as a source of reference notes to the students of Intermediate, Bachelor's and Master's Degree. It is requested to all of the viewers to refer to the original text for the best outcome. The contents of this blog are presented on the perspective of the writer's understanding, so summaries are likely to be incomplete and sometimes even misleading. Please COPY and DOWNLOAD available notes at your own risks.

Search This Blog

9. comparison and contrast - two ways to belong in america.

Please click  YouTube link below to see/read Summary of Comparison and Contrast Essay:

9. Comparison and Contrast (Dakshya Online)

TWO WAYS TO BELONG IN AMERICA

Born in 1940 in Calcutta, India, novelist Bharati Mukherjee immigrated to the United States in 1961 and earned an M.F.A. and a Ph.D. in literature. Now a naturalized U.S. citizen, she teaches at the University of California at Berkeley. Her fiction often explores the tensions between the traditional role of women in Indian society and their very different role in the United States. 

“ Two ways to belong in America”  first appeared in the New York Times. It was written to address a movement in Congress to take away government benefits from resident aliens (foreigners). This is about the issues that confront all immigrants in America. 

In America, it is a common misconception that all foreigners are similar; it is believed that they all have similar dreams and each of them end up chasing after the same jobs. However, this is not the case. Not only do immigrants from different countries hold different dreams, but those with a shared background even have varying hopes and dreams for the future. This is evidenced in Bharati Mukherjee’s essay. She utilizes several rhetorical strategies in order to show that immigrants have the ability to be assimilated (adapted) into the American culture, but that they should not be deported if they choose not to follow to said culture.

In  Two ways to belong in America , Bharati Mukherjee talks about two sisters (Mukherjee and her sister Mira) who moved to the United States in the 1960s. Both sisters moved to United States in hope to pursue their dreams and to achieve their goals with college and further education. Bharati and Mira had similarities in appearance and religious beliefs, but their lives ended up going down different paths. They had planned to go back to India after their education to marry the men their father had chosen for them. However, they did not go as planned. Bharati married a Canadian American man and became an American Citizen, despite the culture she was born into. On the other hand, Mira married an Indian man and obtained her green card. 

Over the years, both the sisters have adopted to America in different ways and have formed different beliefs based on their experiences. Mira wants to maintain her Indian identity. She beliefs that the immigration laws should only apply to those that go to America after the rules have been implemented. In outrage, she tells her sister, “ If America wants to play the manipulative game, I’ll play it too ”. By getting a temporary American identity, she proves that she is willing to play the game that America has thrown in her way. This will only be for the time she stays in America; she loves her country and will eventually denounce the American citizenship and go back home. Unlike her sister, Bharati has adopted to the American community and feels like a part of it. She compares the situation in America to the one that she faced in Canada, where the government turned against the immigrants. Therefore, through her experience in Canada she understands the betrayal her sister feels; that is why she has already acquired American Citizenship.

Regardless of the immigration struggles both sisters went through, they remained close and they did not let their divergent thought get in the way of their relationship. Both sisters know that they have sacrificed their beliefs and values to be where they are and hope others will not have to go through what they have experienced. 

This essay shows the parallelism between what different immigrants think of moving to the United States from their home country. Some embrace the change and are excited to adopt new cultures, while others are scared and wish to hang on their culture. Mukherjee Adopted the American culture and she says “ America spoke to me – I married it ” while her sister Mira argues “ some kind of irrational attachment to India that I don’t to America ”. According to Mukherjee, Mira is a pleasant well-educated woman that has deliberately not adopted the American culture, despite the posed requirements on immigrants. She states that her sister is “ professionally generous and creative, socially courteous and gracious. She is here to maintain an identity, not to transform it. ” Mira felt to the American Dream, she remained true to what she was and never lost the Indian background. 

The author presents struggles faced by immigrants in their quest for an American Dream. The tone of the essay is reflective and sympathetic while the style adopted is an anecdote (personal). Mukherjee reflects her life and compares it to the sisters through a persuasive voice.

The essay structure shows the emotional development of Mira. Bharati writes about how they have kept good relations though they differ very much. Then she shows what each sister thinks of one another in their heart. This comes after she describes how Mira was angry after she knew about anti-immigration bill. 

There are two ways to belong in America. The first is means that either have a green card and be a citizen. Another way is to fit in with society and to feel as if you belong. But to belong to America requires also to be able to live an independent life. 

Please click  YouTube  link below to see/read Summary of  Why Chinese Mothers are Superior :

Summary and Analysis of Why Chinese Mothers are Superior - Dakshya Online

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog, bbs first year english question paper with possible answers (tu 2021), professions for women - virginia woolf (1882-1941), the etiquette of freedom - gary snyder.

Opinion How to create a coherent American community

The past told us how the United States tried to keep people out. But how can we bring new arrivals in?

Regarding Eduardo Porter’s May 23 Thursday Opinion essay, “ How America tried and failed to stay White ”:

Mr. Porter nicely summarized a century of immigration laws, recalled Donald Trump’s statements opposing immigration and concluded that a “deep-seated fear that immigrants will reshape [America’s] ethnic makeup, its identity and the balance of political power” besets White people in the United States.

I would contend that Mr. Porter spends too much time in this analysis looking back at what transpired and devotes too little ink to how we go forward as a nation. The White population of the United States has hardly changed in half a century: 178 million Americans identified as White in the 1970 Census, compared with 204 million in 2020 , a change of 26 million. Over the same years, the country’s total population rose by about 128 million people.

White folks in my circle do not fear some new identity; everyone knows the complexion of the country has changed. What I hear White friends speak of isn’t fear. It is something else: puzzlement. Where do we go from here?

Mr. Porter winds up his analysis saying the proper way forward “focuses on constructing a new shared American identity that fits everyone.” Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Explain this shared identity and what it means and how we get to it.

Our country’s intellectual leaders, and I would include Mr. Porter here, are not really defining how we might unify as a cohesive society, even though a good number of scholars insist this unity matters. Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam pointed out Americans’ social bonds began to decline in the 1970s, triggering the drop in voter-participation rates. Columbia University historian Mark Lilla argued the propensity for identity politics led the Democrats into a cul-de-sac from which it is impossible to govern. Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen contended that people ought to ask what is good for our society as opposed to asking what is good for the individual.

All three men make profound points. I would be curious to learn more about how Mr. Porter believes we should weigh the merits of these points rather than simply concluding that White rubes fear the future. Mr. Trump does not speak for the nation. He speaks for himself and a narrow slice of people. My friends might vote for him. But I doubt they will do so out of fear. What they talk of is how long the country can prosper if it has no common idea about what it means to be an American. What they are talking about is citizenship.

Ted Evanoff , Hernando, Miss.

Repeated renewal by immigration is what makes the United States the exceptional nation. The ones who come are self-selected for gumption, nerve and willingness to leave the familiar behind to strike out in a new land. Rather than staying home and making do, these are the people with the audacity to risk migrating, often in the knowledge that there is no going back and that they are forever leaving behind their friends and families and everything they know.

Thus, the best immigrants are not the ones with high skills who can step into success here and know it. Our reinvigoration comes from those with nothing but their courage and their confidence that they can build a new life here. These are the brave ones, the ones who will proudly call themselves “American.”

The United States has remade itself again and again with our O’Malleys, Alberghinis, Huangs, Gottschalks, Cohens, Kowalskis, Singhs, Garcias and all the others who came here in desperate waves, bringing only their initiative and boldness. All these suffered a generation or more of being seen as too different, too dirty and too foreign by the original English settlers, who themselves embodied the same spirit when they left England in their own day. It is from this varied stock that we have built an exceptional nation, and those now coming across our southern border are just the latest version.

We cannot welcome everyone, but the daring to travel far through many dangers is a recommendation in itself. It speaks to the essence of what made the United States and what is our unique national characteristic. Our new arrivals should be celebrated.

William S. Kessler , Seattle

Eduardo Porter’s recent column does a good job of confronting the consistently racist approach to immigration in the United States. But that narrow focus on immigration as the way Americans attempted to consolidate and defend a White identity ignores the fact that there have always been millions of non-Whites in the country. Native Americans were systematically slaughtered and penned up on tiny reservations. Black people outnumbered Whites in some areas of the South (and still do). Spaniards and Mexicans suddenly found themselves to be residents of a new country after the United States seized half of Mexico. These new Americans couldn’t be kept outside the borders, but they could be oppressed and denied education, housing, jobs and opportunity. These efforts sadly continue in many parts of our country. Honesty and decency require us to right all of these wrongs.

Tim Goncharoff , Fairfield, Calif.

Fixing DEI statements

Regarding the May 20 editorial, “ What universities can learn from MIT’s DEI experiment ”:

There is widespread agreement that the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that there is one. The recent Post editorial about MIT’s decision to stop requiring diversity, equity and inclusion statements from job candidates took the first step in that direction. It then proceeded to address an ancillary issue, thus evading the real problem altogether.

A simpler — and more accurate — headline for the editorial might have been “The problem with diversity statements is: diversity statements.” The Post paints a chilling picture of just how much these statements narrow the pool of candidates for teaching positions at elite universities.

At its most basic level, the purpose of a university is to instill in its students knowledge and critical thinking; the primary vehicle for this is faculty instruction. Anything that detracts from this broad, primary goal is a grave threat to it. Failing to select faculty applicants who are the most competent and reliable at raising students to their potential in knowledge, reasoning ability and contribution to their fields is a shameful disservice.

When, as their first priority, university hiring systems focus on group categories and on adherence to shallow philosophical statements, intellectual depth is abandoned. By definition, DEI is largely a collection of social and emotional concepts. Professional merit, however, is primarily a function of knowledge and intellectual performance. These two concepts do not coexist well.

Rid the educational system of DEI and channel efforts instead into the myriad problems that impact students’ educational and intellectual attainment. When this is accomplished, the diversity statement problem will have solved itself.

Carl Thomason , Fredericksburg

An alternative way for universities such as MIT to change the course of arguments about diversity, equity and inclusion and actually to have a dramatic impact on higher education might be for them to share $1 billion of their endowments with a historically Black college or university.

Harvard has an endowment worth $50.7 billion, Yale has $40.7 billion , and Princeton has $34.1 billion socked away. In fiscal 2023, MIT’s endowment stood at $23.5 billion. By contrast, Morehouse College’s endowment stood at just $275 million at the start of the school’s most recent capital campaign, despite its 157 years of excellence. Howard University has the largest endowment of all the HBCUs with $865.3 million , followed by Spelman College, which reported an endowment of $570.8 million in 2021, and earlier this year received a $100 million donation , the largest gift ever to an HBCU.

A number of these historically Black schools are in the middle of fundraising efforts aimed at growing their endowments to $1 billion. If the Ivy League schools want to level the playing field, perhaps they could start by sharing their wealth to help these colleges and universities not simply reach that goal but surpass it.

Carolyn Wilson , Chevy Chase

Louis Armstrong reportedly said about jazz, “If you have to define it, you’ll never understand it.” If leaders of elite universities have to require teaching candidates to submit statements advancing the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion, they’ll never understand what those principles really mean.

Elite universities sit atop a pyramidal structure; not everyone gets access to the pinnacle. These schools exist to advance the levels of preparation and achievement for the students who are determined to be the best and the brightest society has to offer. But waiting to use DEI principles until students reach those elite institutions is a mistake that risks undermining one of the foundational reasons for the existence of these schools: to identify and reward merit.

Applying DEI principles to the schools that serve as feeder systems for elite universities will ensure that more talented students have access to those schools in the first place. Add in transparent admissions policies at elite universities, and the result will be a sustainable system that marries fairness with achievement.

William R. Ayers , Bethesda

About letters to the editor

The Post welcomes letters to the editor on any subject, especially those that expand upon the ideas raised by published pieces and those that raise valuable questions about The Post’s practices and choices. Letters should run no more than 400 words, be submitted only to the Post and must be published under your real name. Submit a letter .

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

A massive, Stanford-led study has found that a brief exercise addressing common concerns about belonging in college increased first-year completion rates on students’ local campus, especially for students in racial-ethnic and social-class groups that were less likely historically to complete the first year at that school.

In a new study, psychologist Gregory Walton sheds light on the relationship between the psychological mindsets students use to navigate college and their opportunities to belong in higher education settings (Image credit: L.A. Cicero)

In the new paper published in Science , Stanford psychologist Gregory Walton – joined by 36 collaborators from 24 other institutions – sheds light on the relationship between the psychological mindsets students use to navigate college and the opportunities students have in higher education settings.

“If colleges don’t offer students adequate opportunities to belong, then just working with students psychologically won’t move the needle – and we need to create better settings,” said Walton, a professor of psychology in the School of Humanities and Sciences . “At the same time, many students have reasonable concerns about whether ‘people like me’ can belong in my college but do have opportunities. That’s where the intervention helps.”

Acknowledging uncertainties about social belonging

Coming to college is hard. Many students feel homesick at one time or another, or struggle sometimes to make friends, to find an academic direction, or to talk with professors. Some students, particularly those from groups that have historically been excluded in higher education, may see these experiences as confirming that “people like me” don’t belong. As Walton’s previous research has found , this uncertainty about belonging can undermine academic performance and achievement, which left unaddressed can perpetuate inequalities into adult life .

“Past research has focused on canonical groups, like African American students or first-generation college students. It’s as if being, say, African American is the same thing everywhere. But we know that’s not true. One of the innovations here is to understand that any given group has different vulnerabilities and different opportunities in different settings.” —Gregory Walton Professor of Psychology

For over two decades, Walton has developed a range of interventions to help students surface and address belonging worries. This project was conducted by the College Transition Collaborative (CTC), a group founded in 2014 at Stanford by Walton together with former Stanford post-doctoral scholar Christine Logel (now at the University of Waterloo), and former Stanford graduate students Mary Murphy (Indiana University) and David Yeager (University of Texas at Austin). CTC recently spun out of Stanford and became the Equity Accelerator, led by Murphy.

Here, the social-belonging intervention is put to its largest test. With some 22 colleges and universities across the country and a diverse sample of 26,911 students participating, Walton and his collaborators were able to examine the conditions that made the intervention more or less effective.

The researchers took a unique approach in their analyses. Rather than compare students by single, broad categories – such as Black or first-generation college students – the scholars broke the sample into what they called “local-identity groups” – students of a given race-ethnicity, with a given first-generation status, at a given college, in a given cohort. That allowed them to study the nuances of identity and belonging in different college settings.

“Past research has focused on canonical groups, like African American students or first-generation college students,” said Walton. “It’s as if being, say, African American is the same thing everywhere. But we know that’s not true. One of the innovations here is to understand that any given group has different vulnerabilities and different opportunities in different settings. We map that.”

Offering students adaptive ideas about belonging at college

The intervention was administered online to students before matriculation.

First, students saw results of a survey of older students about how worries about belonging were normal and improved over time. Then, they read personal narratives from diverse students about their worries about belonging and what helped lessen them.

For example, one narrative read: “I found a comfort zone by exploring my interests and taking the leap into an active life on campus. But this took time and before I found my niche here there were times when I felt quite lonely.”

Last, students were asked to reflect on these stories and write an essay for future students about belonging concerns, and how they are normal and improve with time.

“What we’re doing here is offering students the idea that it’s normal to worry at first about whether you belong, and it can get better with time,” said Walton. “Then students can try out that idea in their world and see if it holds and if they can use it to grow their belonging.”

Overall, the scholars found that when the intervention was administered in a supportive environment, first-year full-time completion rates for students in groups that had been persisting at lower rates rose by two percentage points, an impressive impact for an online exercise that took less than 30 minutes to complete (the average time students spent on a key aspect of the exercise – sharing their story – was just 7½ minutes).

The intervention is not enough on its own

Walton uses a “seed and soil” metaphor to understand the relationship between psychological messages and school contexts.

In this analogy, sharing a hopeful way to think about belonging (planting a “high-quality seed”) will make a difference only in contexts in which that way of thinking is true and useful (in “fertile soil”).

But if the soil is inhospitable for a given group – for example, if racial, gender, or social class biases or other barriers make it prohibitive for students to build friendships, find mentors, develop an academic direction, or see their group valued and respected on campus – the seed will wither. Students will drop the idea, and it won’t help them succeed.

The findings generalize to 749 four-year institutions in the United States, which together welcome over a million new students to college each year. If every institution offered incoming students the belonging exercise, an estimated 12,136 additional students would complete the first year of college full time each year. And the results point to the possibility of larger gains if colleges expand opportunities for belonging.

“What’s key is for institutions to look at the student groups they are trying to serve, and ask how well they’re doing with the expectation that they will be doing well with some groups but not as well with others,” said Walton. “How can you expand opportunities for belonging for all groups? And how can you convey the truth of the belonging message in compelling and authentic ways for everyone?”

The belonging module is freely available to all colleges and universities in the United States and Canada at https://perts.net/orientation/cb .

Media Contacts

Melissa De Witte, Stanford News Service: (650) 723-6438, [email protected]