INFORMATION BULLETIN

We witnessed lately a lot of de­bates about the role of “groups” in our society. The topic was debated in relation and in connection with the subject of multiculturalism and how it should work.

It was noticed that the recognition of the ethnic configuration of the New World and of the contribution of each ethnic group, added a new dimen­sion to the beauty and complexity of the New World. At the same time, very correctly, it was noticed that pressed too far, the cult of the “group” concept could give dangerous nega­tive consequences. In connection to this, it should be added that many do not understand or do not want to understand how “groups” came into existence in the New World. Too of­ten the “groups” are considered com­pact transfers from the “old world” into the New World. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Each immigrant was accepted into the New World individually, as a person. Only after he or she gained a certain degree of economic security, that person made a decision in re­gard to cultural identity: “American” or “hyphenated” (Italian-American, Polish-American, Romanian-Ameri­can, and so on). As such, the devel­opment of the “hyphenated” groups is a historical process of the New World. Once constituted, those groups, American historical realities, entered in a process of development. The groups are diverse, and they should be classified according to the way they addressed the issue of inte­gration and the acceptance of the basic and fundamental values of America.

Some groups, or certain members belonging to them, reject the historic American goal of assimilation and integration, and they tend to promote separatism and magnify differences. These same groups try to erase a fun­damental American feature, namely, that an individual should be recog­nized for his or her personal qualities and not for being part of a racial, religious, or linguistic group. Even more outrageous should be consid­ered those who define them as being in “exile.” Beyond the fact that such an approach proves a blatant igno­rance of the concept of “exile,” who or what prevents such so called “ex­iled” to return to their “mother” coun­try?

From their very beginnings, the Romanian-Americans were not such a group. All they wanted was the same rights as other citizens, and that was never considered a right in itself but a special privilege they had to earn time and again. When we talk about the Romanian-American group, we don’t politicize the term, and we don’t use it to secure group rights. Ours is a private and voluntary cul­tural identity that represents no dan­ger to society. The fact that we call ourselves, Romanian-Americans, sim­ply recognizes the way the historical process occurred, from Romanians to Americans. In the words of Traian Lascu: “… our group has been loyal to its adopted country above all else.”

For us, the open end is American and toward it our group moves con­stantly and inexorably. The best proof that our aim was and is to be part of America is represented by the fact that our main language is English. Of course, some of us still use and keep dear the language of our ances­tors, but English is the daily language of our group and most definitely of all our children without exception, if not today, then tomorrow.

The customs and especially the Faith of our ancestors were preserved and have significance only in as much as we are able to share them with America; and in this, and only in this, can they prove their lasting value. The entire above-mentioned obser­vations are true in regard to our reli­gious bodies.

We are not and should not con­sider ourselves as an “appendix” of a foreign religious body, no matter if some individuals overuse and abuse a misleading term like “mother church”(!?). As a matter of personal opinion, I do not understand why a canonical body that came into exist­ence about eighty and some years ago, that is, the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate, should be considered “more” “mother-church” than the Church of Jerusalem that came into existence at the Descent of the Holy Spirit almost two thousand years ago. Equally, I do not understand in what way a “union” with a foreign reli­gious entity or with a contraption brought into existence by the Roma­nian communist regime would ben­efit the Romanian-American commu­nity.

By preserving the Faith of their ancestors and a few cultural customs, that makes us distinct; and by shar­ing them with the New World, the Romanian-Americans contribute to the diversification of America. Our churches should be open to all if we really believe that our Faith is our greatest contribution to America. The Romanian-Americans are part of America, and so should their reli­gious beliefs.

ALEXANDRU NEMOIANU