Cultural assimilation is the process in which aminority group orculture comes to resemble a society'smajority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group.[1] Themelting pot model is based on this concept. A related term iscultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture. This approach is also known ascultural pluralism,[2] and it forms the basis of acultural mosaic model that upholds the preservation ofcultural rights. Another closely related concept isacculturation, which occurs throughcultural diffusion and involves changes in the cultural patterns of one or both groups, while still maintaining distinct characteristics.[3]
There are various types of cultural assimilation, includingfull assimilation andforced assimilation. Full assimilation is common, as it occurs spontaneously.[4] Assimilation can also involve what is calledadditive assimilation,[5] in which individuals or groups expand their existing cultural repertoire rather than replacing their ancestral culture. This is an aspect it shares with acculturation as well.[2] When used as a political ideology,assimilationism refers to governmental policies of deliberately assimilating ethnic groups into a national culture.[6] It encompasses both voluntary and involuntary assimilation.[7]
In both cultural assimilation and integration, majority groups may expect minority groups to outright adopt the everyday practices of the dominant culture by using the common language in conversations, followingsocial norms, integrating economically and engaging in sociopolitical activities such as cultural participation, active advocacy and electoral andcommunity participation.[8][9] Various forms of exclusion, social isolation, and discrimination can hinder the progress of this process.[10][11][12]
Cultural integration, which is mostly found inmulticultural communities, resembles a type of sociocultural assimilation because, over time, the minority group or culture may assimilate into thedominant culture, and the defining characteristics of the minority culture may become less obverse or disappear for practical reasons. Hence, in certain sociopolitical climates, cultural integration could be conceptualized as similar to cultural assimilation, with the former considered merely as one of the latter's phases.[13]
Cultural assimilation may occur either quickly or gradually, depending on the circumstances of the group. Full assimilation takes place when members of a society are no longer distinguishable from those of the dominant group in that society.[4]
Whether a group is expected to assimilate is often disputed by both members of the group and the dominant members of society.Cultural assimilation does not necessarily result in similarity of appearance. Geographical and other natural barriers between groups, even when influenced by a predominant culture, may lead to cultural differences.[vague] Cultural assimilation can happen either spontaneously or forcibly, the latter when more dominant cultures use various means aimed atforced assimilation.[4]
Various types of assimilation, including forced cultural assimilation, are particularly relevant regarding Indigenous groups during colonialism taking place between the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. This type of assimilation included religious conversion, separation of families, changes of gender roles, division of property among foreign power, elimination of local economies, and lack of sustainable food supply. Whether via colonialism or within one nation, methods of forced assimilation are often unsustainable, leading to revolts and collapses of power to maintain control over cultural norms. Often, cultures that are forced into different cultural practices through forced cultural assimilation revert to their native practices and religions that differ from the forced cultural values of other dominant powers.[4] In addition throughout history, voluntary assimilation is often in response to pressure from a more predominant culture, and conformity is a solution for people to remain in safety. An example of voluntary cultural assimilation would be during theSpanish Inquisition, when Jews and Muslims accepted the Roman Catholic Church as their religion, but meanwhile, many people still privately practised their traditional religions. That type of assimilation is used to convince a dominant power that a culture has peacefully assimilated yet often voluntary assimilation does not mean the group fully conforms to the accepted cultural beliefs.[7]
The term "assimilation" is often used about not only indigenous groups but also immigrants settled in a new land. A new culture and new attitudes toward the original culture are obtained through contact and communication. Assimilation assumes that a relatively-tenuous culture gets to be united into one unified culture. That process happens through contact and accommodation between each culture. The current definition of assimilation is usually used to refer to immigrants, but inmulticulturalism, cultural assimilation can happen all over the world and within varying social contexts and is not limited to specific areas.
Social scientists rely on four primary benchmarks to assess immigrant assimilation:socioeconomic status, geographic distribution,second language attainment, andintermarriage.[14] William A.V. Clark defines immigrant assimilation in the United States as "a way of understanding thesocial dynamics of American society and that it is the process that occurs spontaneously and often unintended in the course of interaction between majority andminority groups."[15]
Studies have also noted the positive effects of immigrant assimilation. A study by Bleakley and Chin (2010) found that people who arrived in the US at or before the age of nine from non-English speaking countries tend to speak English at a similar level as those from English-speaking countries. Conversely, those who arrived after nine from non–English speaking countries have much lower speaking proficiency, which increases linearly with age at arrival. The study also noted sociocultural impacts, such as those with better English skills are less likely to be currently married, more likely to divorce, have fewer children, and have spouses closer to their age. Learning to speak English well is estimated to improve income by over 33 percent.[16] A 2014 study done by Verkuyten found that immigrant children who adapt through integration or assimilation are received more positively by their peers than those who adapt through marginalization or separation.
There has been little to no existing research or evidence that demonstrates whether and how immigrant's mobility gains—assimilating to a dominant country such as language ability, socioeconomic status etc.— causes changes in the perception of those who were born in the dominant country. This essential type of research provides information on how immigrants are accepted into dominant countries. In an article by Ariela Schachter, titled "From "different" to "similar": an experimental approach to understanding assimilation", a survey was taken of white American citizens to view their perception of immigrants who now resided in the United States.[17] The survey indicated the whites tolerated immigrants in their home country. White natives are open to having "structural" relation with the immigrants-origin individuals, for instance, friends and neighbors; however, this was with the exception of black immigrants and natives and undocumented immigrants.[17] However, at the same time, white Americans viewed all non-white Americans, regardless of legal status, as dissimilar.
A similar journal by Jens Hainmueller and Daniel J. Hopkins titled "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants" confirmed similar attitudes towards immigrants.[18] The researchers used an experiment to reach their goal which was to test nine theoretical relevant attributes of hypothetical immigrants. Asking a population-based sample of U.S. citizens to decide between pairs of immigrants applying for admission to the United States, the U.S. citizen would see an application with information for two immigrants including notes about their education status, country, origin, and other attributes. The results showed Americans viewed educated immigrants in high-status jobs favourably, whereas they view the following groups unfavourably: those who lack plans to work, those who entered without authorization, those who are not fluent in English and those of Iraqi descent.
As the number of international students entering the US has increased, so has the number of international students in US colleges and universities. The adaptation of these newcomers is important in cross-cultural research. In the study "Cross-Cultural Adaptation of International College Student in the United States" by Yikang Wang, the goal was to examine how the psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of international college students varied over time.[19] The survey contained a sample of 169 international students attending a coeducational public university. The two subtypes of adaptation: psychological and socio-cultural were examined. Psychological adaptation refers to "feelings of well-being or satisfaction during cross-cultural transitions;"[20] while socio-cultural refers to the ability to fit into the new culture.[20] The results for both graduate and undergraduate students show both satisfaction and socio-cultural skills changed over time. Psychological adaptation had the most significant change for a student who has resided in the US for at least 24 months while socio-cultural adaptation steadily increased over time. It can be concluded that eventually over time, the minority group will shed some of their culture's characteristic when in a new country and incorporate new culture qualities. Also, it was confirmed that more time spent in a new country would result in becoming more accustomed to the dominant countries' characteristics.
Figure 2 demonstrates as the length of time resided in the United States increase—the dominant country, the life satisfaction and socio-cultural skill increase as well—positive correlation.[19]
In turn, research byCaligiuri's group, published in 2020, shows that one semester of classroom experiential activities designed to foster international and domestic student social interaction serve to foster international students’sense of belonging and social support.[21]
In a study by Viola Angelini, "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?", the theory of assimilation as having benefits for well-being.[22] The goal of this study was to assess the difference between cultural assimilation and the subjective well-being of immigrants. The journal included a study that examined a "direct measure of assimilation with a host culture and immigrants' subjective well-being."[22] Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, it was concluded that there was a positive correlation between cultural assimilation and an immigrant's life's satisfaction/wellbeing even after discarding factors such as employment status, wages, etc. "Life Satisfaction of Immigrant: Does cultural assimilation matter?" also confirms "association with life satisfaction is stronger for established immigrants than for recent ones."[22] It was found that the more immigrants that identified with the German culture and who spoke the fluent national language—dominant country language, the more they reported to be satisfied with their lives. Life satisfaction rates were higher for those who had assimilated to the dominant country than those who had not assimilated since those who did incorporate the dominant language, religion, psychological aspects, etc.
In the study "Examination of cultural shock, intercultural sensitivity and willingness to adopt" by Clare D’Souza, the study uses a diary method to analyze the data collected.[23] The study involved students undergoing a study abroad tour. The results show that negative intercultural sensitivity is much greater in participants who experienceculture shock.[23] Those who experience culture shock have emotional expressions and responses of hostility, anger, negativity, anxiety, frustration, isolation, and regression. Also, for one who has traveled to the country before permanently moving, they would have predetermined beliefs about the culture and their status within the country. The emotional expression for this individual includes excitement, happiness, eagerness, and euphoria.
Another article titled "International Students from Melbourne Describing Their Cross-Cultural Transitions Experiences: Culture Shock, Social Interaction, and Friendship Development" by Nish Belford focuses on cultural shock.[24] Belford interviewed international students to explore their experience after living and studying inMelbourne, Australia. The data collected were narratives from the students that focused on variables such as "cultural similarity, intercultural communication competence, intercultural friendship, and relational identity to influence their experiences."[24]
Between 1880 and 1920, the United States took in roughly 24 millionimmigrants.[14] This increase in immigration can be attributed to many historical changes. The beginning of the 21st century has also marked a massive era of immigration, and sociologists are once again trying to make sense of the impacts that immigration has on society and the immigrants themselves.[14]
Assimilation had various meanings in American sociology.Henry Pratt Fairchild associates American assimilation with Americanization or the "melting pot" theory. Some scholars also believed that assimilation and acculturation were synonymous. According to a common point of view, assimilation is a "process of interpretation and fusion" from another group or person. That may include memories, behaviors, and sentiments. By sharing their experiences and histories, they blend into the common cultural life.[25] A related theory is structural pluralism, proposed by American sociologistMilton Gordon. It describes the American situation wherein, despite the cultural assimilation of ethnic groups into mainstream American society, they maintained structural separation.[26] Gordon maintained that there is limited integration of the immigrants into American social institutions such as educational, occupational, political, and social cliques.[2]
During the Colonial Period from 1607 to 1776, individuals immigrated to the British colonies on two very different paths—voluntary and forced migration. Those who migrated to the colonies on their own volition were drawn by the allure of cheap land, high wages, and the freedom of conscience in British North America.[27] On the latter half, the largest population of displaced people to the colonies was African slaves.[28] Slavery was different from the other forced migrations as, unlike in the case of convicts, there was no possibility of earning freedom, although some slaves were manumitted in the centuries before the American Civil War.[29] The long history of immigration in the established gateways means that the place of immigrants in terms ofclass,racial, andethnic hierarchies in the traditional gateways is more structured or established, but on the other hand, the new gateways do not have much immigrationhistory and so the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies are less defined, and immigrants may have more influence to define their position. Secondly, the size of the new gateways may influence immigrant assimilation. Having a smaller gateway may affect the level ofracial segregation among immigrants and native-born people. Thirdly, the difference in institutional arrangements may influence immigrant assimilation. Unlike new gateways, traditional gateways have many institutions set up to help immigrants, such as legal aid, bureaus, and social organizations. Finally, Waters and Jimenez have only speculated that those differences may influence immigrant assimilation and the way researchers should assess immigrant assimilation.[14]
Furthermore, the advancement andintegration of immigrants into the United States has accounted for 29% of U.S. population growth since 2000.[30] Recent arrival of immigrants to the United States has been examined closely over the last two decades. The results show the driving factors for immigration, including citizenship, homeownership, English language proficiency, job status, and earning a better income.[31]
Canada's multicultural history dates back to the periodEuropean colonization from the 16th to 19th centuries, with waves of ethnic Europeanemigration to the region. In the 20th century,Indian,Chinese, andJapanese were the largest immigrant groups.[32]
20th century–present: Shift from assimilation to integration
Canada remainsone of the largest immigrant populations in the world. The 2016 census recorded 7.5 million documented immigrants, representing a fifth of the country's population.[33] Focus has shifted from a rhetoric of cultural assimilation to cultural integration.[34] In contrast to assimilationism, integration aims to preserve the roots of a minority society while still allowing for smooth coexistence with the dominant culture.[32]
Legislation applying the policy of "protection" overAboriginal Australians (separating them from white society[35]) was adopted in somestates and territories of Australia when they were still colonies, before thefederation of Australia: in theVictoria in 1867,Western Australia in 1886, andQueensland in 1897. After federation,New South Wales crafted their policy in 1909,South Australia and theNorthern Territory (which was under the control and of South Australia at the time) in 1910–11.Mission stations missions and Government-runAboriginal reserves were created, and Aboriginal people moved onto them. Legislation restricted their movement, prohibitedalcohol use and regulated employment. The policies were reinforced in the first half of the 20th century (when it was realized that Aboriginal people would not die out or be fully absorbed in white society[35]) such as in the provisions of theWelfare Ordinance 1953, in which Aboriginal people were madewards of the state. "Part-Aboriginal" (known ashalf-caste) children were forcibly removed from their parents in order to educate them in European ways; the girls were often trained to bedomestic servants.[36] The protectionist policies were discontinued, and assimilationist policies took over. These proposed that "full-blood"Indigenous Australians should be allowed to “die out”, while "half-castes" were encouraged to assimilate into the white community. Indigenous people were regarded as inferior to white people by these policies, and often experienceddiscrimination in the predominantly white towns after having to move to seek work.[35][37]
Between 1910 and 1970, several generations of Indigenous children were removed from their parents, and have become known as theStolen Generations. The policy has done lasting damage to individuals, family and Indigenous culture.[35]
TheNew Deal for Aborigines announced in 1939 marked the end of official policies based around "biological absorption" or "elimination" of Indigenous peoples, replaced with cultural assimilation as a prerequisite for civil rights. The 1961 Native Welfare Conference in Canberra, Australian federal and state government ministers formulated an official definition of "assimilation" of Indigenous Australians for government contexts. The Menzies Government's Federal Territories MinisterPaul Hasluck informed the House of Representatives in April 1961 that:[38][excessive quote]
The policy of assimilation means in the view of all Australian governments that all aborigines and part-aborigines are expected eventually to attain the same manner of living as other Australians and to live as members of a single Australian community enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities, observing the same customs and influenced by the same beliefs, hopes and loyalties as other Australians. Thus, any special measures taken for aborigines and part-aborigines are regarded as temporary measures not based on colour but intended to meet their need for special care and assistance to protect them from any ill effects of sudden change and to assist them to make the transition from one stage to another in such a way as will be favourable to their future social, economic and political advancement.
After leading the successful1967 referendum that removed discriminatory clauses of theAustralian Constitution, Liberal Prime MinisterHarold Holt explained his government's policy on assimilation thus:
The word 'assimilation' is often misunderstood. There is nothing mandatory or arbitrary about it and it does not mean inter-breeding with the avowed objective of eventually eliminating the Aboriginal physical features or Aboriginal culture. Assimilation means that the Aborigines can be similar to other citizens, not of course in looks, but with regard to all the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship.
Holt's successorJohn Gorton endorsed a policy of "advancement" of Aboriginal people by means of "the assimilation of Aboriginal Australians as fully effective members of a single Australian society", and applauded "efforts being made by the States to involve Aboriginals themselves in the administration of their own affairs and in the exercise of proper authority among their own people," promising to emulate them at a Federal level. He outlined his Government's position thus:[40]
In other words, without destroying Aboriginal culture, we want to help our Aboriginals to become an integral part of the rest of the Australian people, and we want the Aboriginals themselves to have a voice in the pace at which this process occurs. We will measure policy proposals against this objective, and will wish to avoid measures which are likely to set Aboriginal citizens permanently apart from other Australians through having their development based upon separate or different standards [...] However, we recognise that... many Aboriginal Australians are subject to special handicaps which impede their advancement. We are ready, therefore, to support additional action designed to help Aboriginals overcome these handicaps in the transitional phase.
Government policies of 'assimilation' fell out of favour in Australia from the 1970s, with campaigners such as Australia's first Aboriginal SenatorNeville Bonner favouring policies of 'integration' and 'self determination', and theWhitlam Labor andFraser Liberal Governments promotingLand Rights legislation.
In January 2019, the newly electedBrazil PresidentJair Bolsonaro stripped the Indigenous Affairs AgencyFUNAI of the responsibility to identify and demarcateIndigenous lands. He argued that those territories have very tiny isolated populations and proposed to integrate them into the larger Brazilian society.[41] According to theSurvival International, "Taking responsibility for Indigenous land demarcation away from FUNAI, the Indian affairs department, and giving it to the Agriculture Ministry is virtually a declaration of open warfare againstBrazil's tribal peoples."[42]
During the 19th and 20th centuries, and continuing until 1996, when the lastCanadian Indian residential school was closed, the Canadian government, aided by Christian Churches, began an assimilationist campaign to forcibly assimilateIndigenous peoples in Canada. The government consolidated power over Indigenous land through treaties and the use of force, eventually isolating most Indigenous peoples to reserves. Marriage practices and spiritual ceremonies were banned, and spiritual leaders were imprisoned. Additionally, the Canadian government instituted an extensive residential school system to assimilate children. Indigenous children were separated from their families and no longer permitted to express their culture at these new schools. They were not allowed to speak their language or practice their own traditions without receiving punishment. There were many cases of violence and sexual abuse committed by the Christian church. TheTruth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada concluded that this effort amounted tocultural genocide. The schools actively worked to alienate children from their cultural roots. Students were prohibited from speaking their native languages, were regularly abused, and were arranged marriages by the government after their graduation. The explicit goal of the Canadian government, through the Catholic and Anglican churches, was to completely assimilate Indigenous peoples into broader Canadian society and destroy all traces of their native history.[43]
During Croatia'spersonal union with Hungary, ethnic Croatians were pressured to abandon their traditional customs in favor of adopting elements of Hungarian culture, such asCatholicism and theLatin alphabet. Because of this, elements of Hungarian culture were considered part of Croatian culture, and can still be seen in modern Croatian culture.[44]
Throughout theKingdom of Hungary, many citizens, primarily those who belonged to minority groups, were forced to convert toCatholicism. The forced conversion policy was harshest in Croatia and Transylvania, where civilians could be sent to prison for refusing to convert.[45] Romanian cultural anthropologist Ioan Lupaș claims that between 1002, when Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary, to 1300, approximately 200,000 non-Hungarians living in Transylvania were jailed for resisting Catholic conversion, and about 50,000 of them died in prison.[46]
A major contributor to cultural assimilation in South America began during exploration and colonialism that often is thought by Bartolomé de Las Casas to begin in 1492 when Europeans began to explore the Atlantic in search of "the Indies", leading to the discovery of the Americas. Europe remained dominant over the Americas' Indigenous populations as resources such as labor, natural resources i.e. lumber, copper, gold, silver, and agricultural products flooded into Europe, yet these gains were one-sided, as Indigenous groups did not benefit from trade deals with colonial powers.[47] In addition to this, colonial metropoles such as Portugal and Spain required that colonies in South America assimilate to European customs – such as following the HolyRoman Catholic Church, acceptance of Spanish or Portuguese over Indigenous languages and accepting European-style government.[48]
Through forceful assimilationist policies, colonial powers such as Spain used methods of violence to assert cultural dominance over Indigenous populations.[49] One example occurred in 1519 when the Spanish explorerHernán Cortés reachedTenochtitlán – the original capital of the Aztec Empire in Mexico.[50] After discovering that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, Cortés killed high-ranked Aztecs and heldMoctezuma II, the Aztec ruler, captive. Shortly after, Cortés began creating alliances to resume power in Tenochtitlán and renamed it Mexico City. Without taking away power through murder and spread of infectious diseases the Spanishconquistadores (relatively small in number) would not have been able to take over Mexico and convert many people to Catholicism and slavery. While Spaniards influenced linguistic and religious cultural assimilation among Indigenous peoples in South America during colonialism, many Indigenous languages such as the Incan languageQuechua are still used in places such as Peru to this day by at least 4 million people.
In the course of thecolonization of New Zealand from the late-18th century onwards, assimilation of the indigenousMaori population to the culture of incoming European visitors and settlers at first occurred spontaneously. Genetic assimilation commenced early and continued – the 1961New Zealand census classified only 62.2% of Māori as "full-blood Maoris".[51] (ComparePākehā Māori.) Linguistic assimilation also occurred early and ongoingly: European settler populationsadopted and adapted Māori words, while European languages affected Māori vocabulary (and possibly phonology).[52]
In the 19th century colonial governmentsde facto encouraged assimilationist policies;[53] by the late-20th century, policies favoredbicultural development.[54] Māori readily and early adopted some aspects of European-bornematerial culture (metals,[55]muskets,[56] potatoes[57]) relatively rapidly. Imported ideas – such as writing,[58] Christianity,[59]monarchy,sectarianism, everyday European-style clothing,[60] or disapproval of slavery[61] – spread more slowly. Later developments (socialism,[62] anti-colonialist theory,[63]New Age ideas[64]) have proven more internationally mobile. One long-standing view presents Māori communalism as unassimilated with European-styleindividualism.[65]
A series of efforts were made by the United States to assimilateNative Americans into mainstreamEuropean–American culture between the years of 1790 and the 1960s.[66][67]George Washington andHenry Knox were first to propose, in the American context, thecultural assimilation of Native Americans.[68] They formulated a policy to encourage the so-called "civilizing process".[67] With increased waves of immigration from Europe, there was growing public support for education to encourage a standard set of cultural values and practices to be held in common by the majority of citizens. Education was viewed as the primary method in the acculturation process for minorities.
^abcAbe, David K. (2017-07-19).Rural Isolation and Dual Cultural Existence: The Japanese-American Kona Coffee Community. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 17–18.ISBN9783319553023.
^Phillip Kottak, Conrad (2007).Window on Humanity: A Concise Introduction to General Anthropology with Powerweb. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 445.ISBN978-0-07-325893-5.The exchange of cultural features that results when groups come into continuous firsthand contact; the original cultural patterns of either or both groups may be altered, but the groups remain distinct.
^abcdDr. Rajashree Dasgupta, Asst. Professor."Cultural Assimilation"(PDF).Part II, Geography Honors (1+1+1 SYSTEM), Module 7, UNIT III, TOPIC 3.4. Kolkat, India: Department of Geography, Government Girls’ General Degree College.Cultural assimilation can happen either spontaneously or forcibly [...].
^May, Stephen (2012) [2011].Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language (2, revised ed.). New York: Routledge. p. 346.ISBN9780805863079. Retrieved27 March 2025.Barry does allow that the acquisition of a new identity may not require completely dispensing with the old one. He describes this process as one of 'additive assimilation' (2001: 81). However, he tends to associate this with overtly multinational states, such as Switzerland or Britain. And certainly [...] it remains for him the exception, rather than the rule.
^abSchachter, Ariela (1 October 2016). "From "Different" to "Similar": An Experimental Approach to Understanding Assimilation".American Sociological Review.81 (5):981–1013.doi:10.1177/0003122416659248.ISSN0003-1224.S2CID151621019.
^Anderson, Shannon Latkin (2016).Immigration, Assimilation, and the Cultural Construction of American National Identity. New York: Routledge. p. 135.ISBN9781138100411.
^Spickard, Paul (2007).Almost All Aliens: Immigration, Race, and Colonialism in American History and Identity. New York: Routledge. pp. 50–51.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
^Kostelj, Ivica (1998).Hrvatski arkivi: Zatvorski spisi od 1000. do 1500. godine [Croatian archives: Prison records from the years 1000 to 1500] (in Croatian). Zagreb, Croatia (published 24 October 1998).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Gabbert, Wolfgang (2012). "The longue durée of Colonial Violence in Latin America".Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung.37 (3 (141)):254–275.ISSN0172-6404.JSTOR41636608.
^New Zealand. Department of Statistics (1962).Population Census, 1961. Vol. 10. p. 23. Retrieved16 July 2020.Full-blood Maoris totalled 103,987 [...], or 62 2 per cent of the Maori population as it is defined for the purposes of the census.
^Thomason, Sarah Grey (2001).Language Contact. Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Georgetown University Press. p. 135.ISBN9780878408542. Retrieved16 July 2020.It is possible that, although older English loanwords were nativized into Maori phonology, newer loanwords are no longer being nativized, with the eventual result being a changed Maori phonological system.
^Hoskins, Te Kawehau;McKinley, Elizabeth (2015). "New Zealand: Maori Education in Aotearoa". In Crossley, Michael; Hancock, Greg; Sprague, Terra (eds.).Education in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Education Around the World. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 159.ISBN9781472503589. Retrieved15 July 2020.The gaping disparity in outcomes between indigenous Māori students and Pākehā (New Zealand Europeans) has its genesis in the colonial provision of education for Māori driven by a social policy of cultural assimilation and social stratification for over 100 years.
^Hoskins, Te Kawehau;McKinley, Elizabeth (2015). "New Zealand: Maori Education in Aotearoa". In Crossley, Michael; Hancock, Greg; Sprague, Terra (eds.).Education in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Education Around the World. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 159.ISBN9781472503589. Retrieved15 July 2020.From the 1970s, Maori activism across the social field has led to [...] a formal social policy of biculturalism and iwi (tribes) positioned as partners with the state.
^Neich, Roger (2001).Carved Histories: Rotorua Ngati Tarawhai Woodcarving. Auckland: Auckland University Press. p. 147.ISBN9781869402570. Retrieved15 July 2020.The change from stone to metal tools occurred at different times in different areas of the North Island, depending on the amount of contact with European visitors. In the coastal areas this happened very early, starting with the metal obtained from Captain Cook's men and other eighteenth-century explorers such as Jean-Francois-Marie de Durville and Marion du Fresne, followed very soon after by the sealers and whalers. Away from the coasts, the first metals arrived later, in the early nineteenth century, usually as trade items brought by missionary explorers.
^McKenzie, Donald Francis (1985).Oral Culture, Literacy & Print in early New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Victoria University Press. p. 20.ISBN9780864730435. Retrieved15 July 2020.In the early 1830s we see the hesitant beginnings of letter writing in written requests for baptism [...]. The effective use of letters for political purposes was many years away. Nor did printing of itself become a re-expressive tool for the Maori until the late 1850s.
^King, Michael (2003).The Penguin History of New Zealand. ReadHowYouWant.com (published 2011). p. 286.ISBN9781459623750. Retrieved15 July 2020.Traditional Maori clothing had gone out of general use by the 1850s (and much earlier in communities associated with whaling and trading and those close to European settlements), though it would still be donned, especially cloaks, for ceremonial occasions and cultural performances. As the European settler population had begun to swell in the 1840s, so European clothes, new and second-hand, had become widely available along with blankets, which had the advantage of being usable as clothing and/or bedding.
^Stoddart-Smith, Carrie (2016). "Radical kaupapa Maori politics". In Godfery, Morgan (ed.).The Interregnum: Rethinking New Zealand. BWB Texts. Vol. 39. Bridget Williams Books. pp. 38–39.ISBN9780947492656. Retrieved15 July 2020.[...] different western ideas may complement the diverse perspectives of kaupapa Māori frameworks, but it would be an error to construe such ideas as essential to them. Many Māori drive a socialist agenda, for example, and although there are commonalities with some aspects of tikanga Māori, socialism as a political philosophy should not be seen to be implied by Māori narratives.
^Buick-Constable, John (2005). "Indigenous State Relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A Contractual Approach to Self-determination". In Hocking, Barbara Ann (ed.).Unfinished Constitutional Business?: Rethinking Indigenous Self-determination. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. p. 120.ISBN9780855754662. Retrieved16 July 2020.From the 1970s, [...] in the wake of a changed international climate of human rights and anti-colonialism, Indigenous peoples around the world sought a reinvigoration of their Indigenous identity and a renewal of their Indigenous self-determination. [...] Largely in tandem with these trends has been a renaissance of the theory and practice of contractualism [...]. The history of Maori-Crown relations in Aotearoa/New Zealand is exemplary of this contractual approach in the struggles of Maori for self-determination historically and contemporaneously.
^O'Regan, Tipene (2014).New Myths and Old Politics: The Waitangi Tribunal and the Challenge of Tradition. BWB Texts. Vol. 17. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.ISBN9781927131992. Retrieved16 July 2020.[...] my Beaglehole Memorial Lecture of 1991 [...] was delivered at a time when hearings of the [Waitangi] Tribunal were becoming a battleground [...]. Māoridom itself was experiencing a remarkable efflorescence of freshly reconstructed group identities and New Age-style incorporations into Māori ethnic identity. The Waitaha movement emanating from within contemporary Ngāi Tahu was one of these.
^For example:Ward, Alan (1974). "Myths and Realities".A Show of Justice: Racial 'amalgamation' in Nineteenth Century New Zealand. Auckland University Press (published 2013).ISBN9781869405717. Retrieved16 July 2020.It is often said that Western individualism is in conflict with Polynesian communalism [...]. It is hardly surprising that today Maori attitudes to the law appear more ambivalent than they did in the 1870s and 1880s.
^Hoxie, Frederick (1984).A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
^ablon, Peter. ""The Reform Begins"".Bill Nye the Science Guy. p. 201.ISBN0-9650631-0-7{{isbn}}: ignored ISBN errors (link).
^Perdue, Theda (2003). "Chapter 2 "Both White and Red"".Mixed Blood Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. The University of Georgia Press. p. 51.ISBN0-8203-2731-X.
Gordon, Milton M. Daedalus Yetman (ed.). "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality".Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.90 (2). Boston, Mass.:245–258.
Grauman, Robert A. (1951).Methods of studying the cultural assimilation of immigrants. University of London.
Kazal, R. A. (April 1995). "Revisiting Assimilation".American Historical Society.100.
Murguía, Edward (1975).Assimilation, Colonialism, and the Mexican American People. University of Texas at Austin: Center for Mexican American Studies.ISBN978-0-292-77520-6.
Zhou, Min (Winter 1997). "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation".International Migration Review.31 (4, Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native–Born Responses in the Making of Americans):975–1008.doi:10.1177/019791839703100408.PMID12293212.S2CID20588618.
