Whether we think of it as assimilationist or pluralistic, the melting pot is usually a celebratory image. “Melting” suggests a natural, automatic process, one that is uncontested, non-violent, and inevitable. However, this semester we have learned to question such totalizing theories, expecting to look for more complexity than they allow for. For example, Pratt teaches us to recognize situations of “asymmetrical power” that result in complex hybrids of culture AND power struggles and injustices. Choose TWO from our principal sources this unit (Coates’s Between the World and Me; Tobar’s “Americanismo”) . Discuss each in terms of how it engages with the “melting pot” image (as established in other readings in our unit) AND might introduce an analysis of power struggle or negotiation that perhaps goes beyond any pacific notion of “melting together.” As part of your essay, you should compare the two you’ve chosen as well – how do their analyses differ, which is more hopeful, more critical about issues of justice, etc. What concept of American identity does each wind up endorsing? Is it a substantial revision of more traditional definitions (i.e. Crevecoeur/Roosevelt/Frederickson)? According to these texts, what are the possibilities and the terms on which Americans can live together? (What is assimilation? What is pluralism? What is peace? What is justice?) Make specific references to the pieces you’ve chosen as evidence for your argument about them. Draw on the ideas of at least three (3) additional sources from our unit to help you in your analysis. (So, 5 sources total).