Rating: 
Summary: A hispanic recommends
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: As insightful as "Clash of Civilizations"
Review: 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."
Rating: 
Summary: HUNTINGTON - DER FUHRER
Review: Exactly of what is Huntington afraid? America has a uniquely flexible culture capable of absorbing ever more diversity. That is a magnificent achievement. Will America implode one day? Yes, every other similiarly powerful country in human history has. Will diversity contribute to its destruction? It's quite possible. Meanwhile, however, we should enjoy the ride and thank god we don't live in a country like Iran.
Rating: 
Summary: Xenophobia 2004... new shiny look
Review: For someone who equates "American" with White-European-Protestant, Huntington writes remarkably well and makes one or two good points. (Take for instance, Huntington's observation that Americans are becoming more culture focused and less nation-state focused.)
But peel away the facade of intellectualism and objectivism and what do we uncover? The usual anti-Mexican, anti-immigrant, anti-papist, zenophobic rhetoric.
Huntintons' complaints aren't new. Racist, classist, and unfactual? Yes. But not new.
The Mexicans just won't learn the language. The Mexicans just won't stop re-producing. The Mexicans have one foot in this country and one foot in the other. And so on.
But What makes Huntington's critique unique is the willingness with which he rewrites and distorts White American history. The revisions are, of course, meant to uphold his claim that the contemporary arrival of hoards of Mexican immigrants is significantly diferent and more harmful than the grand influx of poor European immigrants during the early part of this century. My European ancestors, he says, were better for this country than my newly arrived Mexican neighbors are because they were 'settlers,' 'pilgrims' who helped mold the nation. They were willing and prepared to give up the old ways, to assimulate properly. They didn't overpopulate, they didn't wallow in their own poverty, and they didn't border-hop.
Never mind that they did. Never mind that my own White family history challenges the myth of instanteneous American-ness on every level. Huntington isn't interested in the incongruencies of history.
That's why everyone South of the Border is "Mexican" in this Book. Forget the varied experiences of Puerto Rican "immigrants," of Cuban, Guatemalan, Chilean, Peruvian, and Colombian refugees. Forget the Brazilians all together. For the purposes of Huntington's "thourough" examination of Latin influences in North America all Latinos will be considered "Mexican."
All in all Hungtington's book repersents a grand under-estimation of Americans from every corner of the globe. This can be seen most clearly in Huntington's abject panic in the face of bilingualism. It's bad enough, he tells us, that the "average" American has to tolerate the babble of non-English speakers. But what are we going to do if Bilingualism comes to be seen as the norm, or, god forbid, an asset? White working class Americans will be left behind as a Spangish elite snatches up all the jobs!
Huntington just doesn't think much of Americans. Not white ones, not black ones, and not brown ones. He doesn't think we can handle more than one language without our heads exploding. He doesn't think we can differentiate between our favorite Soccer team and our Nation of residence. And he desn't think we can accomodate more than one American dream. But he'd like us to take his lake of confidence as patriotism.
I'm not worried about "Who Are We" though. Because seventy years ago when my ignorant, unwashed, insular, rapidly reproducing Eastern-European Jewish ancestors hopped the ocean all the "real" Americans weren't that thrilled then either. But they're getting over it, finding new scape-goats apparently. And I'm betting that in seventy years the Huntington's of the world will have forgotten about the shift in US demographics that took place around the turn of the century, and be focused on making someone else's life harder.
Rating:
Summary: Old wine, new bottles
Review: Here Huntington misunderstands America and American history in this poorly-researched, mummified jeremiad aimed at latino immigration.
Note that similar books and articles attacking US immigration policies have appeared throughout our history, from the waves of Irish immigration in the 1820s and 1840s to the policies that allowed the Chinese to build the railroads. Fortunately, our relatively open immigration policies and diversity have always won out against the nativist critics like Huntingon.
Rating:
Summary: A Thought Provoking Historical Review of American Identity
Review: Huntington does a great job bringing together the viewpoints of many observers of the American scene over the centuries while adding his own scholarly observations. He is at his best as he discusses what has happened over the course of American history with our sense of identity. He also observes the present scene and its various actors and players with a discerning eye. But, I found his crystal ball about the future more than a bit cloudy. I don't share all his fears about what might happen as Spanish speakers predominate in certain sections of America. Many parts of the book fascinated me. For example, his observations about the views of today's American societal elites should be required reading in Middle America. For quite some time I've observed a paternalistic, condescending and contemptuous attidude toward the public by too many of our elites. Interestingly enough, Huntington adds multinational business moguls and nongovernmental organization (NGO) potentates to the list of usual suspects such as the media and academia. I don't care to hear any more phrases from politicians' or pundits'that begin with "What you have to understand is . . . ." Overall, Huntington doesn't insult anyone's intelligence while arguing his point of view. He has compiled an impressive amount of supporting evidence too. I found myself becoming angry as he points out the logical bankruptcy of the way elite elements of our society interpret our legacy and laws to benefit certain elements of society over others. As he points out, our society has never been perfect. But, is it morally right to correct past injustices with injustices of a different sort? Pehaps I read too much into the the text on this point but the author seems to make many telling points as to why a sense of morality and duty belongs in public and private life. That's certainly old-fashioned but it got us to a place where we can continue to make things better.
Rating:
Summary: Huntington's prescience
Review: Huntington got it right with Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order and he gets it right again with Who Are We? While blue-state reviewers who haven't read the book rate it poorly, history proved his premise with the 9/11 attacks and the Muslim street's response (or lack thereof) and now the 11/2 response has proved him right again as those 'values voters' voted their culture instead of their pocketbooks and refused to believe the barely-stifled hatred liberals show for America.
I read the book. Everyone concerned about the direction of America should too.
Rating:
Summary: Widely Misinterpreted and Slandered
Review: Huntington's new book, much like his last, has been widely misinterpreted and slandered by the chattering classes. In actuality, it is a subtle and complicated argument about the nature of American identity and its future salience. Huntington's argument about Anglo-Protestant culture does not allude to crude Anglo-centrism or Protestant chauvinism but a series of traits and practices that form the core of American culture. The challenges to American identity found in unlimited Hispanic immigration, cosmopolitan elites, the growth of subnational identities, and the political effects of foreign diasporas are well-developed and persuasive. This book should appeal to a wide variety of readers: political junkies and academics certainly, but also regular Americans concerned about the future direction of their country. It is well-written, clever, and illuminating.
Rating:
Summary: Instant clasic!
Review: I bought this book because I had read his former book, "The Clash of Civilizations". At the time I was very impressed by his unusual stand and fresh look on world affairs. In "The Clash of Civilizations" he described the importants that cultural difference have in world politics. And the consequences of these differences after the end of the cold war for the world affairs (it turned into a classic). In "Who Are We" Huntington concentrates on the cultural identity of the United States of America that made it what it is today. In a way this is book is a follow up on the "Clash of Civilizations", but this time not directly for the world affairs but for the internal affairs of the USA. Although, as a European reader, I recognized the same trends described in the book in Europe. After reading this book, I was quite shocked to see, how indifferent the American elite can be over their own cultural identity. Shocked to see, that in some ways it can supersede even European policies. In my view the books presents a compelling case against the over the top multi culturalisme (and not only in the USA), that made us forget who we are and hence made it impossible to act on what is need to survive in a multi cultural world. I noticed that there was a lot of bad press on this book (just as "clash of civilizations"), every self respecting source needed to comment on the book, that sounds as an instant classic to me! As happens always when a book is not telling the already accepted, many reviewers reject the new ideas presented to them in loud words.
What ever side your on, if you buy this book, you buy a classic and have a nice view on the battle of ideas that will shape tomorrow.
Rating:
Summary: Scary
Review: I don't know what's scarier, the warnings in this book or the people who gave this book more than a one star rating, although it deserves 0, this system doesn't accept less than 1. But such beliefs are more in line with those in hate history who believe in the concept of a pure society. It's almost comical to consider such a concept in a land that is anything but pure in culture or ethnicity, but also in a world where today, people are moving all over the planet. And I don't have to remind anyone of those in history and today who have tried or are trying to create a pure society (Hitler, Zionists, South African Apartheid government, skinheads, the KKK, etc.) and how successful they were/are. I urge people to reconsider subscribing to such "warnings" although in these times, xenophobia has become not only popular, but the norm, providing all kinds of opportunities for racists like Huntington.
There is nothing more beautiful than the bridging of cultures, the fusion of east meets west, south meets north, because ALL of our culture is inspired by a harmony of multi-cultures, and harmony is impossible with one voice.
But I suggest anyone spend a year in somewhere like Tuscany. You will eat Tuscan food and experience Tuscan culture and nothing else. It's fine if you're Tuscan or love nothing but Tuscan culture, but it's just not what most Americans are used to. We thrive on variety, because it's our culture and that culture will continue to evolve bringing more and more of the world into it. And, yes, even the inclusion of many borrowed words in our "English" language (not American language, mind you), has harvested a masala of a language, a language that in its "purer" form was brought to this land by immigrants - the English kind. (...)
|
