Introduction
In his essay entitled the Hispanic Challenge, Samuel Huntington claims that the traditional American identity is now facing a serious challenge with the increased and continuing immigration of Latinos in the United States. Huntington is considered as one of the country’s influential political analysts, but his suggestion that the Mexican and other Latin immigrants are likely to destroy the American identity is unfounded. Huntington’s argument in The Hispanic Challenge reflects the ethnic prejudice against the Mexican’s and other immigrants in the United States, and how the liberal press favors such attitudes.
This paper aims to show how Huntington’s argument in his essay is reflective of a prejudicial attitude against Latin immigrants. First will be the discussion on how the author lumped all the Latino’s, and considered them as “threat of white nativism” (Huntington, 41). Further, reading the essay revealed that Huntington focused on the alleged ‘undesirable’ characteristics of the Latin immigrants, while failing to show how they positively contributed to the progress of the American economy throughout history. He is particularly averse towards the Spanish language and the need for bilingual education. The reader also noted that The Hispanic Challenge consisted of unjustified assumptions, such as the claim about the want of the Latinos to conquer a territory in the US for themselves. Most of Huntington’s arguments are biased, not only against the Latinos, but to other immigrants as well.
Lumping of the Latinos’s: A Political Action
There is a considerable increase in the number the Latino’s in the United States, and this has generated apprehension on the part of some Americans. For one, the Latinos, as presented in The Hispanic Challenged were lumped into a single category, thus Cubans, Mexicans, South Americans and people from the Latin countries are considered as belonging to one minority group. Their population is now the largest of all the minority groups in the United States; accordingly, there was a fear that these groups of immigrants from the Latin countries are a result of a scheme that will soon aid in making the US a nation for the Latinos. This fear can be associated with Huntington’s remark that: “Unlike past immigrant groups, Mexican and other Latinos have not assimilated into mainstream U.S culture, forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves” (Huntington, 30). Consequently, many Americans share the same sentiment as Huntington’s attitude in categorizing the Latinos as one.
It is to be noted, however, that the Latin Americans were also concerned about the considerable growth of their population and how it could impact the society. This fear came from taking the Latinos as one group of people and labeling them as Latino or Hispanic (Gracia, ix). Many people from Latin America disagree about the common ‘Latino’ label, because it means neglecting the differences in terms of each’s culture and tradition. The idea of lumping all Latinos as one group is often founded on stereotyping which “is a kind of generalization, and generalizations are the essence of all knowledge” (Garcia, IX). While there is nothing wrong with the generalization itself, using it to refer to a large number of the population often results to misconception and bias because they do not accurately reflect the truth. Moreover, there is the stereotyping that often comes with generalizations and the danger is that these conceptual modes, while they may not be true, can have a diverse effect on an individual’s sense of well-being.
The Assertion on Historical Claim
In his essay, Huntington used the historical presence of the Mexicans and Mexican Americans in his argument that the Latinos, particularly those of Mexican heritage “could assert a historical claim to US territory” (Huntington, 36). He explained that the Mexicans cannot forget the events in history when they have to immigrate to the country after their military was defeated by the forces of the United States. That is, he asserted that the Mexicans feel entitled to a part of the United States, particularly the region that was once a predominant part of their homeland (Huntington, 36). He also alleged that the Latinos are different from other immigrants because they were able to retain their native language. For one, he observed that “for the first time in US history, half of those entering the United States speak a single non-English language” (Huntington, 33). Huntington offered that the Latinos failed to identify with the US mainstream and values and predicted that the Mexican-dominated part of the country will become “an autonomous, culturally and linguistically distinct, and economically self-reliant bloc within the United States” (Huntington, 41).
What Huntington failed to realize was that even the Anglo-Americans who first founded the United States were immigrants or by their descendants who came from Europe. Consequently, because of its flexibility in welcoming other people from other countries, the US is referred to as ‘nation of immigrants’ (Brimelow, 204). Therefore, Huntington’s apparent prejudicial view against the Mexican immigrant contradicts this concept. In another argument, he claimed that the Mexicans failed to integrate into the mainstream American society. Again, he failed to realize that merging takes time. As Brimer (205) pointed out, “After he Norman Conquest of England in 1066, it was nearly three hundred years before the invaders were assimilated”, which means that the process of assimilation of the Mexicans may take extend over many years.
The Latino’s Diffiuclty in Learning the English Language
Further, Huntington based some of his arguments on the ground that the Mexicans and other Latino’s have difficulty in learning the English language. What concerns Huntington is that it was observed that even the descendants of the first generation immigrants that extends up to the fourth generation failed “to approximate US norms in education, economic status, and intermarriage rates” (Huntington, 36). The merit of his argument lies on the result of a study in year 2000, where it was found that more that 28 million people in the US use the Spanish language at home, and about 13.8 million of them spoke the English language worse that ‘very well’ (Huntington, 37). There was a fear that Spanish-speaking people are continually increasing, but the increase is not met by an equal vigor to assimilate. The real score is that they are ‘treated by the US agencies as a homogenous ‘protected class’ essentially as a result of ethnic lobbying in Washington” (Brimelow, 218). In contrast to being encouraged to assimilate, they are given the special treatment by acknowledging their culture and language. What strikes the Huntington is that it is not unusual for Americans to learn another language to be able to communicate with people of foreign culture, however, he argued that the Americans should not be compelled to learn another language to communicate with fellow Americans.
Huntington implied that if the Mexicans truly wanted to be part of the American community, then they should contend with what other immigrants usually do. In his ideals, he desired that just like other immigrants, the Latinos should learn to fluently speak English just like the Anglos, and commit to improve their lives through better education, increasingly adopt the political values and institution in mainstream America, in addition to limiting the number of their offspring. That is, he recommended a set of prescriptive ideals for the Latinos, but failed to consider the current economic and social conditions that the Latinos are experiencing today.
A report published in the New York Times revealed that the Latino youngsters are currently facing socio-economic obstacles that may hinder their speedy and wider integration into the American society. It was found that one in five children in America is of Latinian descent, but while 92 % of them are citizens, about 58 % live with parents who were born and raised in other countries. Thus, the use of their native language at home is explicable, and should not be taken against those who wanted to keep a part of their culture in the family. A research conducted by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Council of La Raza showed that despite being raised in a two-parent household, the Latino youngsters lived in low-income families. While there are other studies indicating an improvement in the lives of these children, such as better socioeconomic indicators and better education, it remains that a substantial number of Latino children live in poverty and in neighborhoods that are isolated from better off families. Consequently, the New York Times report suggested that the Latinos are expected to assimilate in no time “just as earlier immigrant groups did, with an accompanying rise in their social and economic status” (Roberts, n.p).
Thus, instead of referring to the Latino community as a social problem as implied in The Hispanic Challenge by Huntington, they should be considered for the positive impact they can impart in the society. As pointed out by some scholars, “as long as we continue to operate within the existing capitalist social relations of the larger society, there is a good reason to believe that racism and social injustice will continue to pose serious threat to democracy” (Gorski, n.p). For one, the Latinos are here to stay, and the government can help them in their assimilation by providing better opportunities through educational programs. While the government has already pushed for these programs through bilingual education and other approaches, these affirmative actions should press on to hasten the Latino’s assimilation into the American society.
The Charges on Dual Citizenship
It concerns Huntington that the Mexicans and other Latino immigrants opted to preserve their own culture, rather than embracing the new institution offered by the American society. While he acknowledges the contribution of immigrants in the enrichment of the Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding immigrants in the United States, he suggested that this was true only until the last decades of the 20th century. As new waves of immigrants from the Latin countries came to the country, the American culture “came under assault by the popularity in intellectual and political circles of the doctrines of the multiculturalism and diversity” (Huntington, 32). He suggested that the immigration of the Latinos in the country brought about a unique form of problems.
the impact of transnational cultural diasporas; the expanding number of
immigrants with dual nationalities and dual loyalties; and the growing salience
for U.S. intellectual, business, and political elites of cosmopolitan and
transnational identities (Huntington, 32).
In the essay, there is a strong sentiment against the transformation of the American society into a state where two cultures which was referred to as the Anglo and Latinos, and two languages which are the English and Spanish. The reader takes this as resonating the history of immigration in the United States, when immigrants from Asia and other parts of Europe came under attack by people who were threatened by the possible competition. The United States’ culture continues to transform from one that is centrally Anglo-American into a more diversified culture because of the merging of different nations. What Huntington failed to consider is that these diversified cultures needed to improve on a set of skills and knowledge, which one current system had failed to provide. While the educational system have introduced programs to accommodate the needs of the immigrants, and unequal treatment has been reduced, it was still inadequately equipped to meet the needs of the students in general. The immigrants cannot be expected to fare as well as their Anglo counterparts who have been in the country for several centuries. The inability of the Latinos to assimilate is further magnified because they comprise the largest number of minorities in the country.
The Fear on Reconquering US Territory
Another unsupported claim in Huntington’s essay implied the desire of the Latinos to gain part of the United States for their own. He wrote: “History shows that serious potential for conflict exists when people in one country begin referring to territory in a neighboring country in proprietary terms and to assert special rights and claims to that territory” (Huntington, 36). This part of the essay referring to territory revealed the author’s unhealthy perception of the Latino’s motives in immigrating into the United States. For one, there is no realistic support to the idea that the Mexican American leaders are out to stage an act that intends to conquer any US territory for themselves. In contrast to his claims that the Latinos refuse to assimilate and are in fact burden to the society, there are many instances to show otherwise.
The Positive Contribution of the Latinos in the American Society
In the past several decades, the Latin Americans were known to have increased their voter registration and participation in the political affairs of the country. In addition to that, they have also contributed to the well being of the country since the first wave of Latin immigrants came into the country. Historically, Mexican Americans demonstrated their patriotism when they served in the military during the Second World War. Still, many of them became active in the political affairs in the country from being members of the Congress, and serving as responsible officials in their community. Further, it cannot be denied how the Latinos, when given the opportunity, excel in many areas such as in arts, music, and literature among others.
On Bilingual Education
Huntington wrote that bilingual education and the controversy associated with it will eventually banished when one imagines that the immigration of the Mexicans will eventually stop. Further, he cited his perception that there will be an “increased incentives for all immigrants to learn English and absorb US culture” (Huntington, 32) with the stoppage of the inflow of immigrants. His claims suggested his aversion to bilingual education, and his thoughts that the immigrants and bilingual education are “threat to the country’s cultural and political integrity” (Huntington, 33). In contrast to his claim, bilingual education is not a threat to anyone, much less to the American institution. In fact, it was found that learning another language exposes a person to numerous possibilities because proficiency in more than one language is important in the global market. Moreover, fluency in two languages serves as a symbol that it is important for people to unite, regardless of race, country of origin, and language.
Conclusion
The Hispanic Challenge written by Samuel Huntington reflects his point of view, as well as that of the others who were against the increased number of Latin population in the country. Throughout his essay, he discussed his perception about the negative impact of the Latin community in the country. While he tried to use some resources to provide credibility to his claims, readers found it that the majority of his arguments is unsupported, rather, they are generally founded on his biased point of view. For one, the Latinos are here to stay and are trying to assimilate into the mainstream society. When given the chance and the right opportunities, the Latinos can quickly assimilate and adapt to the American culture just like other immigrants from other parts of the world.
Works Cited
Brimelow, Peter. "Immigration Has Consequences: A Less Perfect Nation." Alien Nation. New York: Random House, 1996. Print.
Gorski, Paul. A Brief History of Multicultural Education. N.p., Web.
Gracia, Jorge. Latinos in America: Philosophy and Social Identity. Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
Huntington, Samuel. The Hispanic Challenge. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Roberts, Sam. Study Finds Young Hispanics Face Obstacles to Integration. The New York Times.
