presents. This, while showing the author’s patriotism and nationalistic tendencies, almost sets the average American up for failure. In stating his high expectations and standards for the American’s daily behavior and attitude toward his country, Crevecoeur makes it nearly impossible for any American to be ‘truly’ American according to his rubric. One may break the law or disagree with the government at one time or another, and then what would he be? One may reasonably doubt that even Crevecoeur himself lived up to this standard during his entire life, which would make the author a hypocrite in that respect.
The author begins his passage with a question to his reader: “What attachment can a poor European immigrant have for a country where he had nothing?” He then writes further to elaborate upon this question and its answer.
This rhetorical question, used to make a point rather than to inquire the reader’s opinion, serves as the basis for the first half of this detailed definition while allowing the reader to think of his own answer which he then can compare to the author’s. The question also is most likely serving to form a point of agreement between writer and reader because it asks a question that has a nearly unanimous answer: “None.” Many may agree that there is actually little to no real attachment to have in that situation. Two other rhetorical questions further along in Crevecoeur’s work guide the reader into agreeing with him. “His labor is founded on…self interest. Can it want a stronger allurement?” Also, “Here, religion demands but little of him…Can he refuse [this]?” These questions fill the purpose of having the reader both recognize Crevecoeur’s reasoning and to agree with him; the author does not specifically make a statement, allowing the reader to think that they agree with one another without actually having to. This, in turn, gives the reader a sense of trust in the writer and his …show more content…
ideas. Crevecoeur also uses some symbolism in this passage with which he deems Americans “finish[ers of] the great circle.” The author writes that they will accomplish this with their “arts, sciences, vigor, and industry.” There are a few interpretations of what exactly this could mean.
Perhaps the author is speaking of the way knowledge and ability cyclically give birth to more of such things—Europe provided its people with information and new discoveries which the Americans would then bring to a new nation—thereby completing the “great circle” of knowledge. Furthermore, since a true circle has no real beginning or end, Americans would be the starters as well as the finishers of the “great circle”; they would be spreading new ideas and methods of discovery to the next generation, just as Europe did to them. This symbolism not only provides depth to Crevecoeur’s argument. It also vividly expresses his veneration toward Americans and their purpose in the New
World.
If any article defines the opinions of a naturalized citizen of the United States, Crevecoeur’s piece may be deemed representative of every appreciative one there is. His definition involves both what Americans should be as well as what their overall purpose is. Crevecoeur uses praise along with advice and guidelines to present his views, and those views come across boldly, implying that America is and will always be the land of opportunity and happiness.