Talk:Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
[edit] WASP majority
The article states that, "He argues instead that Anglo-Protestant ideals have historically been and ought in future to remain central to American identity long after "WASPs" themselves cease to be a majority or even plurality of American citizens."- Today (assuming Anglo-Saxon refers to anyone of English descend) WASPs constitute no nore than 8.9% of the population, making the above statement incorrect as it implies that there is a WASP plurality. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
Who Are We? A Timely Question with an Outdated Answer While posing the question “Who are we?” , it is clear that Samuel Huntington believes he knows who we should be. Huntington argues that America’s strength has come from what he calls our “Anglo-Protestant” culture, the culture of the original thirteen colonies. He perceives a cultural trend away from this “Anglo-Protestant” national identity, and he concludes that this trend has led to a weakening of our national resolve and stability. From Huntington’s view, the issue of Mexican immigration, and the “Hispanization” of the United States is the greatest immediate threat to his ideal “Anglo-Protestant” culture, and hence to our society. It is true that the United States and Mexico have a unique relationship, and that Mexican immigration plays a significant role in the developing identity of the US. However, whether this force is a threat or an opportunity depends upon the answer to the question “Who are we?”. Huntington’s answer as well as his qualitative assessment of Mexican immigration are driven more by ideology than by data. The flaw in his reasoning is his assumption that a return to the worldview of the 18th century will provide the key to our survival in the 21st. Huntington’s theories are outdated, and his conclusions about the threat of Mexican immigration are unconfirmed. Instead, the answer to the question of “Who are we?” should lead to the conclusion that Mexican immigration does not present a threat, but a significant opportunity. I will begin with a brief review of the history of Mexican immigration. This is common ground, for I agree with Huntington that the nature, the scale, and the social implications of Mexican immigration into the United States are unique; in no other place on earth do two countries share such a long, isolated land border and mutual history, yet exist at such different points in their economic development. From this point, I will reason, as does Huntington, that it is inevitable that Mexican people will be a part of the American landscape. The question lies in whether Mexican immigration is a threat to be minimized, or an opportunity to be maximized. To answer this question, I will review Huntington’s impressions and the evidence he puts forward to support his view of the threat posed by Mexican immigration. I will show that his position is based upon what he perceives to be the primacy of the “Anglo-Protestant” ideology, how he sees Hispanic, and specifically Mexican immigration as undermining this ideology, and that the argument he presents is focused primarily on the issue of cultural assimilation. I will follow with data and arguments showing that Huntington’s theories are outdated, his conclusions about the assimilation of Mexican immigrants are uncorroborated, and that there is a better answer to the question of “Who are we?” leading to the conclusion that Mexican immigration presents not a threat, but a unique opportunity. Finally, I will discuss the implications of my conclusions for future Mexican immigration policy. Mexico and the United States share almost 2000 miles of contiguous land border, stretching from San Diego, California, to Brownsville, Texas, with few serious geographic barriers to border crossing. , Unlike European or Asian immigrants, who must cross thousands of miles of ocean to reach America, Mexicans, in most cases, can walk. In addition to the lack of geographical obstacles, the disparity in wealth and economic development between the two countries is great, especially in contrast to that between the United States and Canada, who also share a very long land border. This combination of factors creates a situation in which migratory flow is almost inevitable. Overlying this is a history dating back to 1848 and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War. As a result of this treaty, the United States annexed an enormous tract of Mexican land, including all or part of the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas, along with the people living there that passively became the first Mexican immigrants. Prior to this treaty, much of the area now occupied by Mexican immigrants in the United States was in fact Mexican territory, with a history of Spanish influence dating back to the 16th century. The current border arose as a series of lines drawn on a map, not as the result of any significant geographical barrier or cultural differences, creating national separation where no cultural separation existed. Mexicans are, have been, and will always be an integral part of the Southwest, and cultural integration is both an historical fact and a current reality. Central to the threat that Huntington perceives is the issue of cultural assimilation; he looks at the history and the current volume of Mexican immigration and sees a group of people who cannot be seamlessly integrated into his ideal “Anglo-Protestant” American society. . In his view, immigration is successful and beneficial only when it results in full cultural assimilation, wherein the immigrants take on the core views and values of “Anglo-Protestant” America. Immigration is a threat if “Anglo-Protestant” culture is diluted. This is primarily an ideological argument; the issue of the superior virtue of “Anglo-Protestant” culture cannot be objectively proven. Instead he offers data on language, academic performance of sequential generations, occupation and income, rates of citizenship, and surveys of stated ethnic identity all of which he claims to support his conclusion that Mexican immigrants are not being assimilated into American culture in a way that compares to other “successful” immigrant ethnic groups of the past, and thus represent a threat. However, the existing data on language, education, socioeconomic status, and stated ethnic identity as measures of assimilation do not support the conclusions that Huntington seeks to draw. Social scientists commonly use a three-generation model of language assimilation , with sequential loss of native language with each generation, until the third generation speaks almost exclusively English. Using census data, Huntington and others concur that Mexican immigrants are roughly following the three-generation model, especially if allowance is made for the effects of ongoing immigration. While in agreement that the vast majority of third generation Mexican immigrants are fluent in English, Huntington suggests that Mexican immigrants differ from the historical European model in their desire to retain fluency in Spanish as well , and thus represent a threat to the primacy of English as the native language of the United States. Data presented by Waters show that America is very effective in stamping out original immigrants’ languages and Mexican immigrants are no exception. By the third generation over 90% prefer to use English, even though they may be bilingual. In addition, rather than a threat to English as our primary language, retention of Spanish fluency fits a model of selective assimilation, and offers cultural stability in a setting of social discrimination. Huntington presents data that show the poor performance of Mexican immigrants in the American job market, with low rates of professional employment, high rates of employment in unskilled positions, and high rates of poverty . He also suggests that subsequent generations have failed to follow the straight-line model of economic improvement, and uses this information to support the conclusion that Mexican immigrants represent an economic burden, and that Mexican workers are inherently inferior to those who assimilate to the “Anglo-Protestant” culture. Data presented by Smith argue that Huntington’s data is incorrect, and that if analyzed correctly, the data suggest the Mexican immigrants are in fact improving their economic status in subsequent generations. Even if the data presented by Huntington are accepted, both Waters and Massey provide alternate explanations for this finding that arise out of the dynamics of Mexican immigration. Massey discusses the segmented labor market, which creates a need for unskilled labor at the lowest pay classes, while providing little opportunity at the upper end of the scale, while Waters describes the different global economic conditions that collectively raised the status of historical groups of immigrants in a way not paralleled in our current economy. Once again, the observed differences in Mexican immigration, if they exist at all, are well explained by the dynamics of the process, and could as easily be interpreted as the side effects of current immigration policy and social discrimination. When evaluating stated ethnic identity, Huntington writes that “The ultimate criterion of assimilation is the extent to which immigrants identify with the United States as a country, believe in its Creed, espouse its culture, and correspondingly reject loyalty to other countries and their values and cultures.” He then presents limited data suggesting the Mexican immigrants were unlikely to choose “American” as their primary ethnic identification, along with several anecdotes such as Mexican soccer fans booing the “Star Spangled Banner” in Los Angeles, and an anonymous student stating that Uncle Sam was not his uncle. Other data indicate, however, that these findings are not unique among Mexican immigrants, nor are they likely to represent a particular threat. Both Massey, when discussing Mexican population, and Waters , looking at the West Indian black population, argue that social networks and societal discrimination can drive the persistence of ethnic identity. In addition, Waters presents data showing that in contrast to the past when immigrants wished to distance themselves from their ethnic origins, Americans increasingly choose to associate themselves with one or several ethnic identities. The desire to maintain ties with one’s ethnic roots is both an adaptive response by a group subject to discrimination, as well as an increasing trend in the American population as a whole. Moreover, of immigrants surveyed, Mexicans are the least likely to have a negative opinion of the US compared to their country of origin. These arguments support the premise that the characteristics of Mexican immigration are not anomalies, but simply the way that immigration looks in 21st century American society. Fears regarding the effects of immigration on American culture and society are not new, but have accompanied each previous wave of immigration. In each case, the fears have not become reality, and the long-lived autonomous alien societies that were predicted have not developed. Rekindling these fears, now applied to Mexican immigration, is looking to the past. To revert to an obsolete way of thinking and to worship the mythical virtues of an idealized “Anglo-Protestant” culture born in the 18th century is also looking to the past, and the successes of the past hold no guarantee of future success. To look forward, we must seek the answer to the question of “Who are we?” not in the history of who we have been, but in the nature of what we wish to become. The world has changed greatly since our nation was founded, and cultural and geographic integration are the irreversible trends. If we are to succeed and prosper as a nation, and to keep a place in world leadership, it will be because our culture and shared beliefs transcend mere geographic and ethnic ties, for the days when the known world can or should be dominated by a single ethnic group or single belief system are long past. Seen in this light, Mexican immigration as part of a plan for continental and hemispheric integration has the potential to be a unique opportunity. The economic integration of Mexico and the US, and of North America as a whole, is inevitable. United States policy, as evidenced by the NAFTA treaty, acknowledges this in all aspects except for the labor market. The globalization of economies and the shrinking world both favor integration at a scale the goes beyond the traditional nation/state. As Massey indicates, “Economic globalization creates cultural links between developed and developing nations”. An open border and easy exchange of labor stands to be a benefit to both Mexico and the US. In such a world, the length of our mutual history, the flexibility of our culture and the geography of our continent all provide us the opportunity to utilize this advantage. Huntington’s assessments of Mexican immigrants’ assimilation into American culture are incongruent with the data presented. In addition, the concept of limited immigration from Mexico with the end goal of full assimilation into Huntington’s idea of “Anglo-Protestant” American culture through the establishment of a closed border with restrictive access is both anachronistic and impossible to execute. Instead, future American policy on Mexican immigration should move toward an open border that facilitates the flow of people and ideas as well as goods and money. As Massey proposes, such an approach will allow the forces driving immigration to follow their natural course, without the external force of misdirected policy. Policy and regulation should be focused on establishing an orderly process for border crossing and worker registration, on ensuring adequate wages and working conditions for all workers, on the collection of appropriate taxes, and on safeguarding human rights. In this way the US and Mexico can move forward towards a progressive and prosperous future for both countries. Yvonne Winchell 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just on little question. How do the millions of Irish Catholics (e.g. the Kennedy family) fit into this "Anglo-Portestant" culutre. I think talking about Anglo culutre in a nation where 91% of the population isn't predominantely of English discend is quite questionable. Furthermore, the economically most successful group in this country is not Protestant Whites, it's Asians! SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
