Customer Reviews

Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(15)

 

 

As a Hispanic American, I was a bit conflicted with Samuel P. Huntington's "Who Are We?," but I ultimately enjoyed it. His premise is that we are now seeing a wave of immigration like none before. First in its sheer numbers, but more importantly in the fact that America has never before had so many immigrants from one non-English language and culture come at the same time.

By 2050, Hispanics are projected to be the majority of the population. Huntington never says that this is a bad thing per se, but he makes a great case that immigrants today are not assimilating into American culture like they have in the past. Today they keep their language, their culture, and often their foreign citizenship as well. This is only a problem if you believe that white Anglo-Saxon protestant culture, which immigration is ostensibly eroding, is superior and at the core of American greatness. Huntington certainly seems to believe this; only time will tell if he is right.

While I agree with him on so many points (bilingual education in public schools, for example, which is really education in Spanish), I'm not sure I share his general concern. We are experiencing a major demographic shift, and affirmative action does distort the American dream, but I'm not sure that future generations of Hispanic Americans will not assimilate into a (modified) American culture.

I am an American first and foremost. This is the case probably because I was born and raised here. But Spanish was nevertheless my first language, and my folks didn't become citizens until this year. If I ever have children, they will certainly be even more American than me. Despite Huntington's copious statistics, I don't see how a future generation of immigrants' children, born and raised in the U.S., will not pick up the English language and have at least the same love for this country that your average white suburban disaffected teen has.

While packed with quotes jarringly split with attribution, and so many detailed facts that would have better been presented in footnotes, "Who Are We?" is nevertheless an important book. Huntington's credentials are enough reason to read it, but if you are interested in the future of this country you should read it, too.

Back in 1993, Huntington's seminal article in Foreign Affairs "The Clash of Civilizations" was prescient about the violent clash between Islam and the West. It better explained the causes of 9/11 than most books written after 9/11!

Now, Huntington's focus has turned inward to the changing identity of American society. He considers that the demographic explosion of Mexicans within the U.S. is causing a Clash of Civilizations within our borders. This is not going to be a destructive clash as the one with Islam. Nevertheless, Huntington suggests it may alter the identity of the U.S.

Huntington states that the U.S. identity is the result of an Anglo-Protestant culture characterized by the English language, the rule of law, work ethic, education, and upward mobility. This entails that each generation has aspired to achieve a higher standard of living. Immigrants from all over the World have adopted this Anglo-Saxon creed as their own road to success. Generations of Europeans, and Asians adopted the English language as a mean to thrive within American society.

However, according to Huntington, Mexicans are different. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration due to a combination of factors, including: proximity, scale, regional concentration, and historical presence.

Mexico is a large country contiguous to the U.S. with a huge population of 100 million. Mexicans infiltrate the porous U.S. border in unprecedented numbers. Thus, Mexicans dominate the influx of emigrants to the U.S. They also tend to settle in Border States. By 2050 Hispanics are projected to represent 25% of the U.S. population. Today they already account for over 32% of the population in California and Texas. Many Mexicans view their infiltration within the U.S. as their regaining territorial claims they had lost to the U.S. in the mid 1800s.

Huntington states there are serious implications to the Mexicanization of parts of the U.S. Hispanics, including Mexicans, unlike other immigrants, do not buy into the Anglo-Protestant creed of our founding settlers. Asians moved to the U.S. and faced formidable linguistic barriers, as their mother tongue was so different from a Western language. But, they did not think this was a problem. However, Hispanics thinks it is. They promote a bilingual country. Over time, they will demand bilingual education, and bilingual political access and power.

Huntington's arguments are challenging because they are well founded. Huntington mentions that Mexicans do not believe in the Anglo-Protestant creed on several counts. Contrary to other minorities, Mexicans do not buy into education as a road to success. He has studied the educational profile of Mexicans. He noticed that Mexicans' education levels across generations are actually declining. The fourth generation descendents of Mexican immigrants (the great grand children of the first immigrants) are less well educated than the third generation. Only 9.6% of Mexicans earn a college degree. This is about half the rate of African Americans, commonly considered the most underprivileged minority group in the U.S. As a result of their declining academic achievement, the fourth generation also experiences lower income and a dramatically lower level of homeownership (only 40.3% vs. 55.1% for their parents' generation; and 64.1% for the U.S. average).

Huntington quotes members of the Latino business community who recognize the difference between the cultures. These businessmen indicate that several cultural features keep their respective community behind, including: mistrust of people outside the family, lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; little use for education; and acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven.

If you want to further study this topic, I recommend David Heer's "Immigration in America's Future"; Richard Alba's "Remaking the American Mainstream"; and Barry Edmonston's "Immigration and Ethnicity."

As someone who came to the United States fresh after college in the mid-eighties, I pondered the question of my new identity and American identity in general quite often. I picked Mr. Huntington's book in the summer of 2005 and found it to be very enlightening. I find it undeniable the fact that at the origin of the success of America as a nation and a state lies her British, protestant origins. That origin set the tone of the work ethic, legal system, democratic representation. One can find further confirmation of this thesis in the splendid "The History of the American People" by British historian Paul Johnson. Samuel Huntington points out that until early sixties immigrants arriving in the USA were assisted by the government in their assimilation process. The English language instructions were easily available and no one found offensive the premise that the command of the english language was essential to fully function as an American. Since then, the "assimilation" became a bad word and government's assistance started to look like discrimination. These days, in the name of diversity and political correctness, any government program has a counter-assimilation effects. The bilingual education of Hispanics, for example, only postpones their entry into the English speaking world. Compare the fate of Hispanic youth receiving their education in Spanish with that of young children arriving from Eastern Europe, Russia or Asia. With no bilingual education available to those kids, their succesful transition into English speaking world is almost instantenous.

While discussing three major social theories, Mr. Huntington clearly makes a case for a "tomato soup with garnishings" model (with tomatos representing anglo-protestant core values with garnishings provided by non-anglo immigrant groups). Once hoped for, "melting pot" model, is not really happening. What seems to be happening, however, is that the rising cultural awareness of individual ethnic groups and lack of assimilation programs leads us towards a "tossed salad" type of a society.

The book raises reader's awarenes of the social procesess that take place. Unfortunately, it can only do just that. The sheer force of the sociodemographic change in the US is probably impossible to control and the anglo-protestant core of values will get dilluted and all but disappear.

WHO ARE WE explores the difficult, perhaps insoluble problem of American national identity: what is it? how is it changing? will we recognize where it is going?

Obviously, this issue is heavily politicized, but Huntington is not writing an extremists polemic nor a "red meat for the Red States" conservative screed, even though his basic premise is a capital-C Conservative one.

The question here is whether the American national identity should be tied to things like language, national origin, religion (or at least broadly shared ethical systems, such as the Judeo-Christian system), and so forth. This is, obviously, a tricky question. American national identity has undergone changes, even in the past few decades.

I mean: the most popular single food item in Britain today is Chicken Tikka Masala. This is the same as Huntington's discovery that salsa has eclipsed ketchup as America's favorite sauce. These changes reflect both assimilation and the existance of sub-cultures. The question is whether there is a tipping-point beyond which America will have wandered too far from those things we admire or value most about it today.

I don't agree with all of Huntington's positions or premises, but I liked reading this book because it gave me the opportunity to think about and play with my own assumptions. I wasn't invited to hurl it aside as confrontational to my own feelings, even though I arrived at a different destination than the author.

My own family history is constructive here, containing as it does both immigrants and some famous bigots. One great-grandfather was famous for marching without his hood for a certain group (gee, have I given it away?!?). My grandfather hated the Irish and Italians (but he married a "Roosian", a Russian-German girl from literally across the tracks: go figure.). This fear of foreigners changing our essential American culture has been with us a long time. I don't know if the changes Huntington is concerned about will be the proverbial straw on the camel's back, but I think there is evidence that it can work out for the best too (hybrid vigor and all that). Compare to the somewhat xenophobic French approach for mileage, which is (perhaps wrongly too) in the news at the moment for mileage and one might come to the conclusion that change isn't always necessarily for the bad.

When I told friends in 1999 that I had read Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", they called it a crazy and far fetched book. We then had 9-11 and people were told to better understand the issue they should read "Clash of Civilizations". One of the American trends today is that we look at our investments, policies, etc on short term trends. We also have a trend that states any new idea that goes against the grain of our political philosophy we should attack regardless of whether that idea has merit.
This book will be attacked just like "Clash of Civilizations". Reading some of these reviews illlustrates that their is a divide in our country based upon what we stand for today. In a political campaign these issues can not be answered in a 30 second sound bite or a debate in which a candidate has been prepped to stick to a message or a sound bite. It requires a thoughtful discussion among communites around the nation. To dismiss the book on the grounds that we do not have a problem would be foolish. To say that this book is absolutely on the mark or the author is clarivoyant would also be a mistake.
I highly recommend this book for people to read. Do not follow conventional trends of listening to a conservative talk show host or getting your information strictly from National Public Radio.

Dr. Huntington's book caused alot of upheaval in academia because it dared to say what others will not out of fear of disrupting the multicultural establishment. This book asked the difficult questions which demand honest debate and tough answers. I would encourage anyone to read this who is interested in the cultural transformation our nation has undergone over the past fourty years and where we are heading.

talkwiseblog

Samuel P Huntington - Professor and Chairman of the Harvard Academy of International and Area Studies - is best known for his groundbreaking and prescient book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" wherein he argues that in the post-Cold War era there will be conflicts of cultures rather than ideologies. To an extent this has proven to be the case. In the present volume - "Who Are We: The Challenges to American Identity" - he predicts similar conflicts unfolding domestically inside America's borders. The clash of civilizations within, as it were.

And what is the American national identity that Huntington claims is being challenged? He asserts that our national identity consists of two components: Anglo-Protestant culture and the American creed. Anglo-Protestant core culture is uniquely American and it is the foundation upon which the more universal principles of the American creed are based. He believes that the unique aspects of this identity are central to our national survival.

Anglo-Protestant culture has been central to the American identity for three centuries. It was originally established by dissident Protestants from England who valued individualism, had a healthy suspicion of government, had a vigorous work ethic, believed in voluntary associations and who had a crusading moralism tempered by tolerance. They were united by the English language and English legal tradtions. These were the salient features of the core culture upon which the creed rests. America would have been very different had it been settled by French or Spanish Catholics.

The American creed, the second component, consists of principles to which all can subscribe: liberty, equality, civil rights, nondiscrimination, justice, and rule of law - all the elements of a liberal democracy. Huntington believes that even though the elements of the creed are universal their American manifestation are an outgrowth of our singular Anglo-Protestant core culture and not transferable everywhere.

Huntington believes that this unique American national identity is being challenge at both ends of the social spectrum.

At one end of the spectrum are the liberal elites who are becoming increasingly denationalized with their doctrines of multiculturalism and globalization. "...American elite groups, business, financial, intellectual, professional and governmental were becoming denationalized and developing transnational and cosmopolitan identities superseding their national ones."

Obviously leaders of multinational corporations and international organizations must deemphasize their national identity when conducting their business. Being a nationalist chauvanist on the world stage would be counterproductive and offensive. Huntington's argument here is mainly against the mulitculturalism encourged by the elites. The irony is that the cultural elites derive mainly from the Anglo-Protestant tradition. Are the elites trying to make it a global culture? Or are other cultures at the same time transforming Anglo-Protestantism? I think both are the case and that Huntington may be on a fool's errand to get in the way of this two-way traffic.

On the other end of the spectrum America's national identity is being challenged by immigration. Huntington claims that the large influx of immigrants from Latin America - especially Mexico - is different from previous waves of immigration. The Mexican immigration poses at threat not only for the numbers involved (23 million and counting), but the fact that they are concentrated in states and cities close to our mutual border. With low rates of assimilation, bilingualism, and dual citizenships, Huntington believes they could make territorial claims in the future.

Huntington, I think, misreads the Mexican immigrant for numerous reasons. Primarily, Mexican immigrants want to "commit themselves" to "Anglo-Protestant culture" as defined by Huntington. They are dedicated to the work ethic, they seek to learn English, they become members of the armed forces, and after the second and third generations they intermarry, go to college, and speak only English just like "ordinary Americans."

Their assimilation is actually very similar to that of the southern Italians and East European Jews of an earlier generation, only the scale is different.

Huntington has written an important book that poses some serious questions about American national identity. He is somewhat alarmist about the transformation of the Anglo-Protestant culture of yesteryear. However, I believe American culture is always evolving and becoming more inclusive. Multiculturalism and cosmpolitanism reaches out and incorporates more diverse groups into the American identity, making it less dependent on race, ethnicity, and religion. The important ingredient is creed; everyone must believe in the creed which is central to American identity.

Franklin's quip "if you don't listen to reason she will surely rap your knuckles".....comes to mind when reading this book. As with "Clash Of Civilizations" Hunting methodically points out trends the elite don't want to hear- they would rather embrace abstract notions like "the end of history". In "Who Are We" Huntington illustrates how American identity is eroding - and how this is pushed by an elite who by and large are out of touch with the rest of America. The consequences are catostrophic - if the current trends continue a large part of America will be 'hispanisized' - a de facto separate country.

He also points out that the more extensive arguements of Carol Swain, that White (or European) ethinic activism will grow if the pandering to other ethnic groups continue. It's not hard to see that the current levels of immigration and the increased ethinic fragmentation are not sustainable trends.

Huntington backs up his thesis with careful research, expert analsyis, and the obvious, but overlooked- the direct quotes of the people who are advocating the destruction of our Anglo-Protestant core.

Who Are We? is both thoughtful and opinionated in a well researched, annotated, sourced and documented way. The main themes are:1. We are a nation that started as a group of dissenting English Protestant settlers who believed that one's Salvation was dependant on one's own actions and that success or failure was the responsibility of the individual through his own hard work. 2. We are a religious people, both historically and currently. Our belief in a deity has been consistent since colonial times and there have been several "great awakenings" reestablishing the primacy of religious attitudes in America. Our views on religion are different from those of Europeans whose religiousity has been dilluted or eroded over the years. 3. Immigration when combined with assimilation is good, but Mexican-American immigration has created problems due to lack of assimilation, lack of shared values including the Calvinist ethic and failure to consider themselves American rather than Mexican. According to Huntington, some of this is due to deliberate actions of the Mexican government in an attempt to export their unemployed to the U.S. and to import at least some of the wages those exported receive to Mexico. Also, in Huntington's view Mexico is using their expatriate community to influence U.S. policy to the benefit of Mexico. Some of his data is disturbing. For example he documents a decline in college attendence for third and fourth generation Mexican-Americans as well as a corresponding lack of their movement into the professions. 4. Elites, cosmopolitans, deconstructionists, one-worlders, academics, and governmental authorities are out of touch with the views of "average' Americans who still view the world in terms of nationality and believe in the 'American dream'. He sums up with comments reflective of his earlier The Clash Of Civilizations And The New World Order saying that we have a choice about America's role in the world whether it is cosmopolitan, imperial, or national. In all, it was well documented,worth reading, and not racist or anti-immigration as some reviewers have claimed.

If this provocative book does not generate controversy, it will mean something truly dreadful is filling the headlines and news broadcasts. Author Samuel P. Huntington is willing to say flat out that the white, Anglo-Protestant culture of the United States was important and valuable, and is now endangered. Yet Huntington is not mired in some white-washed past. He's a respected political scientist with an endowed chair at Harvard. His views are not extreme. On the contrary, the vast majority of the American people probably share them, even if they cannot articulate them in Huntington's elite language. He explains the historic evolution of the American identity and the American Creed, and describes their past, present and future in value-based terms. He'll keep you intrigued whether you disagree with his treatise or embrace it as justification for your discomfort, at the least, or your anger and fear, at the most. Whatever your prejudices, dispositions or inclinations about the trends in American society and cultural values, we believe this is a book worth reading.