Posted on 04/16/2004 7:00:24 PM PDT by MegaSilver
On 06 April 2004, my campus newspaper published the following editorial regarding Samuel P. Huntington's Who We Are:
Ah, Mr. Huntington, you have much to learn.
Samuel P. Huntington, professor at Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and chairman of the Harvard Academy of International and Area Studies, has caused controversy recently with the excerpts from his upcoming book Who We Are that were published in Foreign Policy magazine's March/April issue.
According to Huntington, "the single and most immediate challenge" Americans face: Latin American immigration and "the fertility rates of these immigrants." In his opinion, this threat might forever change American society into two cultures, Anglo and Hispanic, speaking two languages, English and Spanish.
Well, Mr. Huntington, wake up.
Things must look simple to you from your cozy Harvard office in well-to-do Cambridge, where you don't meet that many Hispanic immigrants (or their children or grandchildren) every day, and where culture and social customs aren't spiced up by Hispanic immigration - at least, not to the extent we see it in Miami.
From our standpoint in this Hispanic "enclave," as you call it, there is no threat of a split in American society between Anglo-Protestants and Hispanics. For the most part, Hispanics and non-Hispanics live in harmony, taking the best aspects from both their cultures to create a diverse society with a distinctive flavor to it.
Huntington blames Hispanics for not "assimilating" into American language and culture. But today one can't possibly expect the melting pot of immigration to exist as it did in the past, when immigrants were far away and isolated from their home countries, and so it was necessary for survival in their new country to learn English and American traditions as quickly as possible. Today, an immigrant has access to 24-hour news from his home country; he can stay in touch with his relatives, and he can even download the most popular music from back home. It makes sense for immigrants to stay more connected to their roots and "acculturate" rather than "assimilate," as Business Week says in its March 15 article titled "Hispanic Nation."
Yes, in many places, Hispanics have a lower income level, less education and higher fertility rates. Yet, anyone in Miami can see that they don't "lack initiative and accept poverty" or have a "low work ethic," as Huntington says. For example, according to Business Week, the number of Hispanic small business owners and entrepreneurs is rising, and Hispanics are becoming an influential force in politics.
Granted, the excerpt from Huntington's book is only one of 12 chapters, and it concentrates more on Mexican immigration than that of other Hispanics (like Cubans in Miami), but several of his arguments apply to the entire Latino community.
Hispanic immigrants, like most immigrants who come to the United States, come because they're attracted to its opportunities. Many do so for economic reasons, and, as Huntington says, Hispanic immigrants are different from other immigrants because their home countries tend to be much closer to the United States, thus making it easier for them to juggle two cultures rather than change to fit an American mold. When a Hispanic immigrant chooses to stay in the United States, to raise a family here, to pay taxes and, eventually, to become an American citizen, as many Hispanics have done in Miami, he is doing so because he is willing to give up his previous nationality to be a part of this country. In that sense, he is more of an American than anyone else, since he has chosen to be one.
After all, Mr. Huntington, you were simply lucky enough to be born here.
Immigration, in a way, is the sincerest form of flattery.
At UM, we are immensely lucky. We have an extremely diverse student body that allows us to meet people from all over the world, among them many Hispanics and Cuban Americans. Like the city that we're in, we take the best from our different cultures and turn them into our own unique, eclectic mix. Where else would you find a university where Caribbean day is one of the best parties of the year, Salsa Craze is an extremely successful club (among Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike) and there is at least one international student in every class?
At the end of the excerpt, Huntington states, "There is no Americano dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English."
This sentence is harsh and unyielding, but some of us know better than to believe it. You see, some of us who are bi- and trilingual, Mr. Huntington, do something better than dream in English.
We dream in subtitles.
Not content to let the status quo float, I submitted the following (rather poorly written, rather apologetic) editorial ASAP, and it appeared in the 09 April edition:
To the Editor:
Your April 6 editorial, "Lost in Translation," missed the point in the immigration debate. Yes, Miami became what it is in no small part due to multiculturalism, and various ethnic groups have added wonderful dynamics to this city. The same is true for all cities where immigrants have clustered.
However, I must concur with Huntington's notion that immigrants must share in the American dream "in English." Many of us grew up never suspecting that we'd have to learn Spanish, but now we wonder if we'll be able to succeed without it - yet we lack the time and energy to learn it. If people are going to live in America, they ought to learn English rather than make the country accommodate them by learning their native tongue. The same should hold true for any immigrant in any other country.
An ever-more-significant minority acts like it can come to America and still pledge its first loyalty to its countries of origin. There are more than a few American-born children of Hispanic nationals who do this because they can get away with it, and I suspect the problem stems largely from our country's bumper supply of illegal aliens. That is the real problem. People who have no respect for our borders (and therefore our laws) probably don't have too much respect for us or for our culture in general.
We should welcome immigrants who come to pursue the American dream and appreciate the contributions they make to our culture. All we should expect in return is that they not look for handouts, break our laws or try leaving language barriers between themselves and the general public - common courtesy, really.
Sincerely,
Nicholas G. Moses
Proving that the Right must NEVER, NEVER, NEVER apologize because we will ALWAYS get beaten for it, Tiffany Biason submitted the following letter in response to MY letter, and it was published today (16 April):
To the Editor:
When I read "Lost in Translation" (The Hurricane's editorial, April 6) and Nicholas G. Moses' subsequent letter to the editor (The Hurricane, April 9), I realized that the definition of being American is distorted. Some believe that being American means having one language and one culture. To me, being American means having the freedom of integrating both my Filipino and Western ideals and having the right to be recognized and respected for all aspects of who I am.
Moses seems to acknowledge the influence of other cultures in America, but he also says that minorities arrive in America and "still pledge [their] first loyalty to [their] countries of origin," implying that this is a threat. Many people in this country speak perfect English but desire to speak the languages of their native countries in order to remain close to their roots. Contrary to what Moses believes, I don't think that is something they do "because they can get away with it." This desire to integrate their ethnic background with their American identities is their own interpretation of the American Dream. We shouldn't see other cultures as being mere contributions to American culture; American culture is a collection of these other cultures.
Moses believes that immigrants ought to learn the language of a particular country "rather than make the country accommodate them by learning [the immigrant's] native tongue." However, many people in their countries are fluent in at least two or three languages. If anything, with America celebrating its status as a "melting pot" of different cultures, shouldn't Americans reflect the same proficiency? I'm not suggesting that Americans be required to learn multiple languages, but, learning other languages should not be viewed negatively; it should be viewed as an opportunity to grow and become more global.
Moses believes that if people are going to live in America, they ought to learn English. This notion seems to arise from a belief that English is the native language in this country. But if we go from that, then we should speak the language of the Spanish conquistadors that arrived in this land long before other European settlers. In fact, what follows is that we actually ought to learn and speak the languages of Native Americans.
Sincerely, Tiffany Biason
At first I thought "whatever," but prompted by support from a friend (who was more outraged by her letter than I was), I decided to take action and defend myself. On the off chance that the paper would print my response to her response to my letter responding to the ORIGINAL article, I submitted the following (much better-written, much less apologetic) letter, and we shall see what comes of it:
To the editor:
I'd like to comment on what Tiffany Biason wrote in response to my letter regarding immigration. Perhaps my position requires clarifying. I do not decry anyone for speaking to their foreign relatives in a foreign tongue, nor do I think that learning a second language is necessarily a bad idea (I myself am a French minor and am eyeing Italian). I do decry people who come to America and refuse to speak English in the public square.
Also, I do not decry anyone for holding on to certain cherished cultural traditions. However, I guarantee that if I were to try to raise up an "Anglo-American" political voice, I would be decried as "racist," "fascist," or "reactionary." And I do think that there are certain things you'll need to leave behind when starting life in a new country.
Yes, the original inhabitants of this land were Native Americans. But if you want to get into identity politics, the American system as we know it today was founded by Anglo-Saxons. Taking it a step further, notice that lands once colonized by Britain are generally better off economically and more stable politically than the surrounding regions (Iraq notwithstanding, but that's hardly the same case as, say, the U.S.).
Could it be that the democratic-republican tradition is, in large part, an Anglo-Saxon concept? Certainly Anglo-Saxons are not the only ones who can participate in a free society but if it is, in fact, an Anglo-Saxon creation, at least some degree of assimilation into Anglo-Saxon culture is required to participate in it. Otherwise, the democratic-republican tradition becomes hybrid with other, less open, less free systems of government. This, more than anything, is what I think Huntington is talking about.
Bottom line: my largest problems with "multiculturalism" are 1. the refusal of a minority of immigrants, albeit an increasingly significant minority, who refuse to learn English, and 2. the proliferation of hypocritical identity politics (arguably, on both sides of the spectrum) that has come with it. Americans must have a common vision and a common dream if the United States is to survive as a nation. No nation of various cultures with radically different visions has ever, or will ever, last long. (Rome is a prime example.) The people become compartmentalized, the predominant culture becomes resentful, and divided we fall.
Sincerely, Nicholas G. Moses
P.S.: Tiffany Biason observed that I seemed to regard the fact that some immigrants "still pledge [their] first loyalt[ies] to [their] countries of origin" as a threat. I make no secret about the fact that I do. Suppose, for instance, we go to war with those countries? We could end up with American citizens fighting on behalf of their native lands.
I tried something to that effect in my first letter. You have to understand, Liberals are not swayed by logic. Theirs is an emotional worldview thriving on surface-scratching arguments, and there are punishments for dissent.
Yes, and I placed my life in danger. If they run it, I suspect it will be part of a plot to assassinate me. :)
When 2000 or 20,000 people don't speak the native language of the area in which they are in, it is instinctive that they will group together to form a community. Naturally this will be reflective of their native country.
This is the very worst thing that could happen to both the newcomer and the surrounding long term inhabitants. If it is possible to earn a living within the community the newcomer will resist any changes from which he/she is familiar and comfortable with, ie. new language skills, new driving skills, clothing, cleanliness, education limits, obediance of the local laws, etc. In effect they are putting the same limits upon themselves which existed in their home country.
The benefits are a job, housing programs, schooling for their children and competent medical care. These are free of charge of course in America. The illegal immigrant soon learns how to "play" these programs for every form of assistance and every dollar available.
Nobody wants a resident in their county who has no vision for a better future than they are currently living under. I guess this is just bred into native Americans. We want a larger home, a newer car, a better job, more money, etc. Illegal imigrants are restricted from these desires because of their criminal act of sneaking across our border. They are aware that the penalty of deportation could come at any moment.
Having a new breed of leeches move into the community isn't our dream. We will willingly accept someone to come in with new ideas, someone who can speak our language, someone who "wants" the way we do but agrees that our laws and our culture aren't to be considered hinderances that can be abused or ignored because they aren't the same as those in the newcomers country.
Within one block of my own home I have families of at least ten different countries. They are all successful people who have been in America for ten years or more. They came as legal immigrants with the strong desire for democracy that only exisits in a republic. The had read about the liberties that Americans have. They had studied English at home in their native countries while waiting for our slow INS system to work it's steps.
They came here knowing what assistance was available but determined to not use it. They had visions of America that very few illegal immigrants have. The came here determined to make a better life for themselves without being a drain on the American citizen.
These people came here knowing that it was possible to start a new business and have the English speaking American citizens come as willing customers. Their greatest desire was to "be" an American, not someone who stood out like a sore thumb because they refused to adopt the American culture.
They have all been thankfully accepted into our immediate area because they are producers, not users of available resources. Police cars don't patrol our immediate area unless they are called by a resident. It's not a good idea to speed on our streets because you can bet someone will call in your license plate number by the time you have gone two blocks.
Last summer a new neighbor from Norway was laying in a new front yard of sod. Before he knew it, ten neighbors came over to help unload his pickup and lay the new lawn. The job was done in less than an two hours. I now see him walking around on weekends looking to see if another neighbor has a weekend project that can use two more hands.
Limited diversity is a very good thing but the uncontrolled diversity that America is now undergoing is a disease that without question will certainly harm our country and our culture.
Well --- the US Constitution was written in English and now we've got millions of people coming here who have no desire whatsoever to learn English even to read the Constitution in the language in which it was written. If the immigrants were so hard working and freedom loving --- then what is wrong with all those hispanic countries? If their culture is so wonderful, why can they only succeed if they move to a non-hispanic country created by a non-hispanic culture?
Isn't he also an ex-Clintonite, though?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.