This article further points out the inevitability of innumerable perversions of Americanization in such an orgy of organization.  The article says on this point: 

“Every political party has its hangers-on who, consciously or unconsciously, discredit the fine principles of that party by their erroneous expounding of these.  Every new phase in industrial progress has its profiteers—­men who capitalize the advanced ideas of their field for their own interest, regardless of the harm which they bring to the whole by their methods.  Every scientific discovery has its charlatans who mix enough of the truth with their lies to undermine the whole truth when their lies become known.  Every religion has its false messiahs, and many a man has been made an unbeliever because he has followed these too easily and been disappointed too grievously.”

It should be said that the profiteers, charlatans, and false messiahs of Americanization are not, in the main, men and women of bad intentions so much as they are men and women of half-ideas of fractional and incomplete conceptions of Americanization.  The title of false messiahs fits them better than either profiteers or charlatans, for false messiahs are usually profoundly sincere, although profoundly misguided.

No straight-thinking person disputes the need of a fundamentally sound program of Americanization, a vast collective effort toward the stimulation and spread of sane principles of national life among all sorts and conditions of men and women who make up our population.  But anything and everything that goes by the name of Americanization is not necessarily an effective move in that direction.  There is slowly growing up a body of incisive criticism dealing with the current epidemic of Americanization work that is sweeping the country on the wings of clever catch-words and generous emotions.  It may be of interest and value to attempt an analysis and statement of the main points of that body of criticism.  Here are a few plainly valid criticisms.

First, it is psychologically bad to approach Americanization work through a super-organized and much-trumpeted movement, because such a policy warns the foreigner in advance that a crowd of superior persons have set out to improve him.  That is generally resented.  The fact is that hardly a thing has been proposed as desirable in an Americanization program that is not the duty or function of some existing institution of our country, the church, the school, the industry, the press.  Education, hygiene, and a decent inter-class courtesy are necessary features of any sound Americanization program, but they can be more effectively applied by calling them what they are and promoting them in normal ways than by branding them Americanization and cursing them with the blight of paternalistic uplift.